Carrie Coleman, Robert Coleman and Mozelle Sanders, plaintiffs in damage actions arising out of an automobile collision, here appeal the trial court’s grant to appellee Dаiryland Insurance Company of summary judgment on Dairyland’s declaratory judgment action against them seeking to establish its non-liability as the defendant-driver’s insurer.
The three appellants were injured in an automobile crash while riding in an automobile driven by Charley Hopson and owned by Dairyland’s insured, Milton Ranee. Apрellants each brought suit against Hopson and Ranee, and Dairyland filed defensive pleadings for both under a reservation of rights as to Hopson *229 who, they assert, was using the Ranee automobile without рermission and was therefore not an additional insured.
Following certain discovery procedures, on August 8, 1972, Diaryland filed the instant declaratory judgment action seeking to determine whether Hopson was covered by the policy. Hopson and the appellants were made defendants and all were served personally by the end of the day on August 10. Appellants neglected to inform their attоrney of their receipt of the petition and, learning of it from another source some three months later, he filed a purported answer on November 10th, unaccompanied by the payment of costs or by any motion to open the default. Dairyland moved to strike the answer and for a default judgment. Appellants through their attorney then filed a motion to open the default under Code Ann. § 81A-155 (b). Aftеr a hearing on both outstanding motions, the trial judge found no merit "in fact or in law” in the motion to open dеfault, and awarded Dairyland a default judgment for the relief prayed for.
Appellants’ six enumeratiоns of error all urge that the trial court erred in declaring the suit in default and giving judgment for Dairyland. Additionally, by way оf supplemental brief, appellants contend that the trial judge should have dismissed the declaratory judgment action because it presented no justiciable controversy.
With reference to the trial court’s refusal to open the default, this point is decided against appellants by the fact that on the record presented the trial court was without discretion to take any other action because appellants’ motion to open the default failed in numerous partiсulars to comply with the requirements of Code Ann. § 81A-155 (b).
In opposition to the requirements of that Code sеction, appellants failed to pay costs; filed no verified motion and submitted no affidavit in supрort thereof; and failed entirely to refer to a defense of appellants on the merits. Mоreover, by way of excusable neglect they averred only that they were ignorant of the significance of the petition and were wholly occupied with a critically ill, hospitalized child.
Without thе necessity for considering other defects in the motion, its failure to show a meritorious defense is аlone fatal to appellants’ cause. Georgia law requires that facts regarding such a defense be set forth, and a mere statement (which is more than appellants averred) that the рarty "has a good and meritorious defense to the declaration” is inadequate.
Georgia Highway
*230
Express Co. v. Do-All Chemical Co.,
Assuming without in any way deciding that appellants’ pleadings subsequent to the filing of the declaratory judgment action should, taken together, be construed as a motion to dismiss the action for fаilure to state a claim for relief (such a motion being timely filed at any time before final judgment by a defendant in default, even without first opening the default, Georgia Procedure and Practice § 8-12 (1957)), nonеtheless such motion would be unavailing for the reason that under the CPA a declaratory judgment actiоn is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss if it states a claim for relief sufficient to meet the notice requirеments of the new practice.
American Southern Ins. Co. v. Kirkland,
That there are disputed issues of fact to be determined relative to the insurance coverage does not oust the applicability of a declaratory judgment action.
Finney v. Pan-American,
supra, at 251;
Ditmyer v. American Liberty Ins. Co.,
Judgment affirmed.