Hays v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.
314 Ga. App. 110
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Buckbee and Hays attempted to lift a portable toilet onto a deer stand on Buckbee's property in Aug. 2007. Buckbee operated his pickup to pull the toilet via rope and pulley; Hays stood on the deer stand during the maneuver.
- The portable toilet caused the deer stand to fall, injuring Hays.
- Buckbee was insured under a homeowner's policy with Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. (Georgia Farm).
- Georgia Farm filed for declaratory judgment to determine if it must defend Buckbee against Hays's suit; Hays cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Georgia Farm’s summary judgment, ruling the exclusion for use of a motor vehicle applied; it denied Hays’s motion.
- Hays appeals, challenging whether the exclusion is unambiguous and whether the truck's use falls within the exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the phrase 'use of a motor vehicle' ambiguous? | Hays argues ambiguity in the exclusionary clause. | Georgia Farm contends the term is unambiguous. | Not ambiguous; truck was in use. |
| Does the exclusion apply where the truck was used to pull the deer stand? | Buckbee used the truck as a power source, not a motor vehicle. | Use of the motor vehicle includes its ordinary uses; Buckbee’s use was within ordinary truck functions. | Yes, exclusion applies; truck in use caused the injury. |
| Was Buckbee’s truck the predominating cause of the injury? | The pulley system or other factors could be the cause. | But-for Buckbee driving the truck, the injury would not have occurred. | But-for Buckbee’s use of the truck, the injuries would not have occurred; exclusion applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Republic Union Ins. Co. v. Floyd Beasley & Sons, 250 Ga.App. 673 (2001) (definition of 'use' and application to coverage disputes; use requires practical control and ordinary function)
- Padgett v. Ga. Farm, etc. Ins. Co., 276 Ga.App. 796 (2005) (ambiguous terms resolved against insurer; but unambiguous exclusions control)
- Jefferson Ins. Co., etc. v. Dunn, 269 Ga. 213 (1998) (strict construction against insurer when language ambiguous; otherwise apply exclusion)
- Assurance Co. of America v. Bell, 108 Ga.App. 766 (1963) (ordinary function of vehicle; use must align with vehicle’s normal purpose)
- Booker v. Atlanta, 140 Ga.App. 3 (1976) (reasonable interpretation of vehicle use includes common sense considerations)
- Ivey v. First of Ga. Ins. Co., 209 Ga.App. 784 (1993) (uses of a vehicle in relation to the accident)
- Continental Cas. Co. v. HSI Financial Svcs., 266 Ga. 260 (1996) (coverage not provided where excluded conduct is the genesis of the claim)
- Video Warehouse v. Southern Trust Ins. Co., 297 Ga.App. 788 (2009) (but-for test applied to 'arising out of' language in exclusions)