Kovacs v. Cornerstone National Insurance
318 Ga. App. 99
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Kovacs sued Lockhart for damages after a vehicle driven by Lockhart struck him.
- Cornerstone issued auto insurance covering Lockhart’s mother and the vehicle and filed a declaratory judgment to deny coverage.
- Trial court granted Cornerstone summary judgment based on a nonpermissive user exclusion.
- Kovacs appeals, arguing the nonpermissive user exclusion does not apply.
- Evidence shows Lockhart, a minor, drove without a license or the mother’s permission, and the vehicle was not owned by the mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the nonpermissive user exclusion bar coverage? | Kovacs argues exclusion does not apply because owner definition not met. | Cornerstone contends exclusion bars coverage when use is without owner's permission. | Nonpermissive user exclusion does not apply. |
| Is coverage barred by the unlisted household resident exclusion? | Kovacs contends exclusion is unenforceable or inapplicable. | Cornerstone asserts unlisted household resident exclusion applies because Lockhart was not listed. | Unlisted household resident exclusion bars coverage. |
| Public policy defeat of exclusions? | Kovacs argues public policy favors coverage for an innocent victim. | Cornerstone maintains exclusions enforced where allowed by policy. | Public policy does not override the unlisted resident exclusion here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hays v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 314 Ga. App. 110 (2012) (ambiguous policy language resolved by contract rules; exclusions enforceable if unambiguous)
- Middlebrooks v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 222 Ga. App. 785 (1996) (unlisted resident exclusion enforceable with consideration)
- Rogers v. Travelers Indem. Co., 202 Ga. App. 77 (1991) (driver exclusions can be enforceable against public policy concerns)
- Ison v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 230 Ga. App. 554 (1998) (driver exclusions, when clear and supported by consideration, enforceable)
- Woody v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 250 Ga. App. 454 (2001) (unlicensed driver exclusion violates public policy only in limited contexts)
- Rutledge v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 249 Ga. App. 361 (2001) (unlisted household member exclusions enforceable when properly drafted)
- Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Blaylock, 193 Ga. App. 175 (1989) (public policy cannot automatically void otherwise valid exclusions)