Opinion ID: 4531068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability Under the FST Policy

Text: The district court next determined Grange was not liable under the FST policy. That policy, unlike the T&G policy, does not provide liability coverage for “Any ‘Auto’”; instead, it covers only “Specifically Described ‘Autos’,” “Hired ‘Autos’ Only,” and “Nonowned ‘Autos’ Only.” A “Specifically Described ‘Auto[]’” is one listed in the declarations, and the truck was not listed there. Nor was the truck a “Nonowned ‘Auto[]’.” As discussed, FST owned the truck. So the question is whether the truck was a “Hired ‘Auto[]’”—an auto FST “lease[d], hire[d], rent[ed] or borrow[ed].” As applicable here, did FST borrow the truck back from T&G? 6 Case: 18-13555 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 7 of 25 The district court said it did not.3 It determined that, absent a “contractual relationship giving exclusive use rights to T&G,” FST would have always been entitled to use of the truck—so it could not have “borrowed” it back. With respect to evidence indicating there was a lease, FST and T&G pointed to affidavits of Natalie Atkinson (president of FST and T&G) and Audley Atkinson (FST’s supervisor of operations). Natalie’s affidavit said that from “October 15, 2014 up through and including October 15, 2015,” the truck “was under lease” from FST to T&G. Audley’s affidavit said that he selected the truck as one of the vehicles to be leased from FST to T&G and that the truck “was under lease” from “October 15, 2014 up through and including October 15, 2015.” Grange countered by pointing to Natalie’s 2016 testimony that FST had not leased a vehicle in “a few years.” Moreover, no written lease agreement was produced during discovery. The district court explained that Natalie’s testimony was not fatal: a lease agreement can last for many years. But, the district court opined, such an agreement would have to be in writing to comply with Georgia’s statute of frauds. Even assuming such a writing existed, the district court explained that the problem was that the affidavits provided only a legal conclusion: an enforceable lease existed. There was no evidence of lease payments, testimony regarding the length 3 But the court did reject Grange’s argument that FST could not possibly have borrowed back its own truck. 7 Case: 18-13555 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 8 of 25 of the lease or its terms, or consideration T&G provided for the right to use the truck. Said the court: “A party cannot baldly assert that a contract existed any more than they could flatly assert that the opposing party was negligent or committed a tort.”4