Case Name: STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY v. MORGAN
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1988-06-03
Citations: 258 Ga. 276
Docket Number: 45382
Parties: STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY v. MORGAN.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Marshall, C. J., Weltner and Bell, JJ., who dissent.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 258
Pages: 276–278

Head Matter:
45382.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY v. MORGAN.
(368 SE2d 509)

Opinion:
Clarke, Presiding Justice.
We must decide whether voluntary intoxication may render a person incapable of forming an intent or expectation of injuring another so as to place his act outside an exclusion in a homeowner's insurance policy. The Court of Appeals held intent and expectation to be a question of fact and approved its submission to a jury. State Farm &c. Co. v. Morgan, 185 Ga. App. 377 (364 SE2d 62) (1987). We agree.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied heavily upon its earlier holding in Thrift-Mart, Inc. v. Commercial Union &c. Cos., 154 Ga. App. 344 (268 SE2d 397) (1980). In that case the court submitted the issue to the jury but the jury decided in favor of the insurance company. The Court of Appeals overruled Gaynor v. Travelers Ins. Co., 12 Ga. App. 601 (77 SE 1072) (1913).
This case began as a declaratory judgment action by State Farm and asked for an interpretation of the insurance policy which excludes coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured. It is important to remember that the legal issues here rise from contract law and not tort or criminal law. Consequently, policy considerations differ from those in tort and criminal cases. Public policy does not prevent a party from assuming by contract duties more burdensome than those imposed by law because of a party's right to refuse the contract. The fact that the insurer drafts the policy adds validity to this statement.
The question of intent or expectation here uniquely fits the pattern of those issues of material fact which are not appropriate issues for summary judgment but are decided by the trier of fact. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). Even in criminal cases the question of the ability to form intent because of voluntary intoxication can be a jury question. Blankenship v. State, 247 Ga. 590 (277 SE2d 505) (1981); Ely v. State, 159 Ga. App. 693 (285 SE2d 66) (1981).
The words of the contract express a plain and understandable meaning. We decline to overprint those words with limitations which they fail to express and by doing so deprive the jury of its right to decide facts. If the company desires to broaden the exclusion, it may do so. But this task falls to the policy drafter and not to the courts. The policy here deals simply with presence of intent or expectation and not with factors contributing to or subtracting from intent or expectation..
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Marshall, C. J., Weltner and Bell, JJ., who dissent.