King-Morrow v. American Family Insurance Company
334 Ga. App. 802
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Accident on December 28, 2011: Melissa King‑Morrow (resident relative of the named insured) was injured in an auto accident.
- Coverage relationship: King‑Morrow lived with the policyholder (her daughter); the AFIC uninsured motorist policy covered relatives in the household.
- Delay in notice: AFIC was not notified of the accident until King‑Morrow sued and served AFIC on December 4, 2013 (almost 2 years later).
- Procedural posture: AFIC disclaimed liability and moved for summary judgment, arguing King‑Morrow failed to comply with the policy’s prompt‑notice condition precedent; the trial court granted summary judgment for AFIC.
- Appeal and outcome: The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the policy’s prompt‑notice clause—by its plain wording—applied to “you” (defined as policyholder and spouse) and was ambiguous as to whether non‑named insured claimants (like King‑Morrow) had the same duty; ambiguity construed against the insurer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy required a non‑named insured claimant (King‑Morrow) to give prompt notice of an accident | King‑Morrow: The notice clause applies to “you,” defined as policyholder and spouse; she is not a “you,” so she had no prompt‑notice duty | AFIC: The notice clause should be read together with “Other Duties” applying to “each person claiming any coverage,” so claimants must give prompt notice | Held: Reversed — reasonable interpretation is that “you” is limited to policyholder/spouse; ambiguity exists whether claimants must give prompt notice, so summary judgment for AFIC was improper |
| Whether ambiguous policy language should be resolved against the insurer and whether notice was a condition precedent requiring strict compliance | King‑Morrow: Any ambiguity about who must notify must be construed against the insurer; notice provisions are condition precedent but must be clearly drafted | AFIC: The policy reasonably requires anyone claiming coverage to notify promptly so insurer can investigate; 23‑month delay was not “prompt” | Held: The court applied contra proferentem, finding ambiguity and construing it in favor of the insured; did not reach prejudice or excuse defenses because ambiguity defeated summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. The Landings Assn., Inc., 289 Ga. 617 (standard of review on appeal from summary judgment)
- Wade v. Allstate Fire and Cas. Co., 324 Ga. App. 491 (contract/policy construed as whole; ambiguities against drafter)
- Murphy v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 316 Ga. App. 97 (policy terms construed as reasonably understood by insured)
- Eells v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 324 Ga. App. 901 (notice provision can be condition precedent)
- Ace American Ins. Co. v. Truitt Brothers, Inc., 288 Ga. App. 806 (policy read as layman would understand)
- Royer v. Murphy, 277 Ga. App. 150 (contrast: policy explicitly required notice by any person claiming coverage)