Ford Motor Co. v. Conley, 294 Ga. 530

Conleys sued Ford in Cobb County for a 2006 rollover; trial in 2009 ended in Ford defense verdict; Conleys moved for new trial in 2011 after learning Ford had insurers; trial court granted new trial in 2012; Court of Appeals split, case transferred to Supreme Court; Supreme Court affirms, reaffirming strict extraordinary motion for new trial standards.
Discovery at issue concerned Ford’s insurance coverage and whether jurors should be qualified as to insurers; Ford’s responses stated Ford had sufficient resources to satisfy a judgment and included boilerplate objections; Conleys argued responses misled them into believing Ford was self-insured.
Young v. Ford Motor Co. involved similar insurance discovery issues and sanctions against Ford; Youngs’ proceedings revealed Ford’s insurer information, affecting Conleys’ later challenge.
Trial court found Ford’s responses were willful misrepresentations about insurance; Conleys’ motion for new trial relied on two requirements: due diligence and material harm; trial court granted relief on ground of jury qualification error.
Court of Appeals divided on whether presumption of harm from failure to qualify the jury applies; Supreme Court resolves the issue, holding due diligence and material harm satisfied, and that Atlanta Coach presumption applies to civil cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether extraordinary motion for new trial was proper here	Conleys: due diligence and harm satisfied; discovery misled them	Ford: late filing but no harmful error; waivers and due diligence issues	Yes; extraordinary motion granted due to misled discovery and presumed harm.
Whether failure to qualify jury as to insurer caused harm	Conleys: harm presumed after verdict	Ford: no pre-verdict qualification; harm not proven	Harm presumed; new trial affirmed.
Whether Ford’s pretrial order and failure to list insurers created error	Conleys: pretrial order obligation to disclose insurer info	Ford: no affirmative duty to list insurers; not reversible error	Pretrial-order failure did not independently mandate new trial; verdict upheld on other grounds.
Whether due diligence was excused due to Ford’s misleading responses	Conleys: misled by responses; excused from timely discovery	Ford: ordinary diligence should have revealed issues earlier	Due diligence excused; timely challenge permitted.
Whether Atlanta Coach presumption of harm applies to civil jury qualifications	Conleys: presumption should apply to failed qualification	Ford: should not expand beyond traditional contexts	Yes; presumption applies in civil jury qualification context.

Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544 ((1934)) (presumption of harm when jury not qualified regarding insurer)
Weatherbee v. Hutcheson, 114 Ga. App. 761 ((1966)) (jury qualification information and disclosure obligations)
Patterson v. Lauderback, 211 Ga. App. 891 ((1994)) (precedent on timeliness and harm in extraordinary motions)
Floor Pro Packaging, Inc. v. AICCO, Inc., 308 Ga. App. 586 ((2011)) (limits of presumption of harm in insurer qualification)
Reese v. Ford Motor Co., 320 Ga. App. 78 ((2013)) (discovery misconduct by Ford; sanction context)
Usry v. Cato, 170 Ga. 358 ((1930)) (historical context on extraordinary motions and finality)