Spore v. Geico Indemnity Co., 497 S.W.3d 704

GEICO issued an auto-liability policy naming Lolita Ford the sole insured for a vehicle; Adrian Ford drove the vehicle and was involved in a June 24, 2011 accident with appellant Joshua Spore.
Coverage hinged on whether Adrian was a permissive user; GEICO could not confirm permissive use because it could not reach Lolita or Adrian.
GEICO retained counsel to defend the Fords after Spore sued them; defense counsel and a private investigator repeatedly tried to contact the Fords but the Fords did not cooperate with defense or discovery.
The trial court compelled discovery, the Fords again failed to respond, and the court struck their answer and entered default judgment against them (liability established; damages later determined).
GEICO sued for declaratory relief arguing the Fords breached the policy cooperation clause, that GEICO had exercised due diligence, the Fords’ noncooperation was deliberate, and GEICO was prejudiced; the trial court granted GEICO summary judgment and declaratory relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lolita breached the policy cooperation clause	Spore argued facts did not support breach	GEICO argued Fords refused to cooperate with investigation and defense	Not preserved on appeal (issue not raised below)
Whether identify of "Laura Mott" is material	Spore said it was material fact entitling to trial	GEICO treated as immaterial; not raised below	Not preserved on appeal
Whether GEICO satisfied due diligence locating insureds	Spore argued GEICO relied on plaintiff's efforts and lacked proof of how it learned of suit	GEICO relied on its investigator, defense counsel’s repeated contacts, and court proceedings to show diligence	Not preserved on appeal; court found GEICO exercised due diligence
Whether GEICO proved prejudice from noncooperation	Spore argued GEICO failed to show prejudice and wrongly denied coverage earlier	GEICO argued default judgment and inability to mount a defense prejudiced it	Held for GEICO: default and inability to defend established prejudice; summary judgment affirmed

Ison v. So. Farm Bur. Cas. Co., 93 Ark. App. 502, 221 S.W.3d 373 (discusses duty to defend and policy interpretation)
Flentje v. First Nat’l Bank of Wynne, 340 Ark. 563, 11 S.W.3d 531 (summary-judgment standard)
Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Page, 316 Ark. 623, 873 S.W.2d 534 (insurer must show due diligence to locate insured)
Black & White, Inc. v. Reserve Ins. Co., 242 Ark. 573, 414 S.W.2d 369 (insured’s material failure to cooperate forfeits coverage)
Firemen’s Ins. Co. v. Cadillac Ins. Co., 13 Ark. App. 89, 679 S.W.2d 821 (elements for denying coverage for breach of cooperation clause)
Ramey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 54 Ark. App. 307, 924 S.W.2d 835 (lack of notice of a pending claim can be prejudicial)
Entertainer, Inc. v. Duffy, 2012 Ark. 202, 407 S.W.3d 514 (defaulting defendant cannot later introduce evidence to defeat plaintiff’s cause of action)
Jones v. McGraw, 374 Ark. 483, 288 S.W.3d 623 (default establishes proximate cause)