Sapp v. Canal Insurance
288 Ga. 681
| Ga. | 2011Background
- In April 2007, Sapp was injured when her car was struck by a dump truck owned by EDB Trucking and driven by Lamb.
- Sapps sued Lamb and EDB in state court; they also filed a federal suit against Canal Insurance Company.
- Canal filed a declaratory judgment action; Sapps counterclaimed seeking coverage under Canal's policy.
- The trial court granted Canal summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the policy was a basic auto liability policy with a valid 50-mile radius-of-use exclusion.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider applicability of the Motor Carrier Act and validity of the 50-mile radius-of-use limitation, ultimately holding the Act applies and the radius limitation is invalid, reversing the prior rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Motor Carrier Act applies to Canal's policy | Sapp contends Canal's policy falls under the Act because EDB was a motor carrier. | Canal argues the policy is not a motor carrier policy and therefore not subject to the Act. | Act applies to Canal's policy. |
| If the Act applies, whether policy exclusions conflicting with the Act are void, including the 50-mile radius | Radius exclusion improperly limits coverage under the Act. | Radius limitation valid and enforceable under the policy. | Radius exclusion is void; insurer liable up to policy limits. |
| Does noncompliance with permit/endorsement affect the motor carrier status for direct action | Noncompliance should not negate the carrier status or direct action rights. | Noncompliance undermines status or coverage. | Noncompliance does not defeat status; direct action remains available. |
| Is a transcript of the summary-judgment hearing necessary for appellate review | A transcript is needed to review the summary judgment. | Record evidence was submitted; transcript not required for meaningful review. | Transcript not required when evidence was submitted under OCGA 9-11-56(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- DeHart v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 270 Ga. 381 (1998) (motor carrier act protects the public; insurer liable to third parties)
- Ross v. Stephens, 269 Ga. 266 (1998) (insurer liable to injured third party despite policy irregularities)
- Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Vickers, 183 Ga. 233 (1936) (policy terms yield to statute protecting public; direct action concept)
- Ramirez v. Georgia, 277 Ga. 392 (2003) (insurer liable under policy for third-party injuries even if policy lapses)
- Guinn Transport, Inc. v. Canal Ins. Co., 234 Ga.App. 235 (1998) (invalidating exclusions in motor carrier policy inconsistent with act)