Opinion ID: 4531068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liability Under the T&G Policy

Text: The district court first concluded that Grange was liable under the T&G policy. Under that policy, the truck, which was specifically listed (incorrectly) as a “covered” auto T&G “own[s],” thus qualified as “Any ‘Auto’.” To the district court, it did not matter that the truck was erroneously listed as “owned” by T&G, as “[t]here is no serious dispute that the truck qualifies as ‘any “auto.”’” Moreover, although Lucas was working for FST at the time of the accident, he had been added to the T&G policy as an insured. The policy required Grange to “pay all sums an ‘insured’ legally must pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which this insurance applies, caused by an ‘accident’ and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered ‘auto.’” Thus, Grange was liable under the T&G policy. 5 Case: 18-13555 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 6 of 25 Grange does not appeal the finding of its liability under the T&G policy. But we discuss it because Baisden points to what she contends is an internally inconsistent remark in the district court’s summary judgment order. In rejecting Defendants’ argument that T&G “owned” the truck simply because it was listed as such in T&G’s insurance policy, the district court stated, “The evidence before the Court all indicates that the truck was being leased by T&G, and thus was not an ‘owned’ auto.” Baisden argues that this statement contradicts the court’s next holding.