OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. WRIGHT
5:24-cv-00479
M.D. Ga.Jun 6, 2025Background
- Owners Insurance Company seeks a declaratory judgment against its insureds, Julian Johnson and Linda Williams, regarding its duty to defend or indemnify claims from an automobile incident involving Tyler Wright.
- Wright sued Johnson and Williams in Georgia state court, alleging injuries caused when Johnson struck and ran over Wright with a vehicle owned by Williams.
- The insurance policy includes an intentional act exclusion, which Owners argues precludes coverage for acts arising from intentional conduct, except for required minimum state coverage, which Owners has already paid.
- Owners claims Johnson's conduct was intentional and thus seeks a declaration that no additional coverage is owed beyond Georgia’s statutory minimum.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that Owners' complaint does not present sufficient facts to establish a controversy over its duty to defend.
- The federal court found that Owners’ complaint was too conclusory and failed to state a plausible claim for declaratory relief, but allowed Owners leave to amend its complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Owners plausibly alleges an intentional act | Johnson’s actions were intentional | Complaint is conclusory, only states negligence | Court: Owners did not plausibly allege intent, complaint insufficient |
| Duty to defend based on complaint allegations | No duty to defend if claims are intentional | Duty to defend arises if complaint is ambiguous on coverage | Court: Allegations do not show claims are for intentional acts |
| Duty to indemnify if no duty to defend | No indemnification if duty to defend absent | - | Court: No duty to defend = no duty to indemnify, but not reached |
| Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Complaint raises coverage dispute | Insufficient allegations; no case or controversy | Court: Dismissed with leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 140 Ga. App. 215 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976) (insurance contracts are binding and guide coverage scope)
- Penn-Am. Ins. Co. v. Disabled Am. Veterans, Inc., 268 Ga. 564 (Ga. 1997) (duty to defend depends on matching complaint allegations to policy)
- Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Bozovich, 367 Ga. App. 868 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023) (insurer’s duty to defend turns on complaint allegations)
- McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2018) (conclusory allegations insufficient to state a claim)