Court Opinion

ID: 9584118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:44:41.836136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:43.196443
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in that portion of the opinion and judgment affirming the denial of summary judgment to plaintiff Leslie Clabo, and granting summary judgment to defendant Tennessee Mutual, on the uninsured motorist benefits issue. However, I dissent from that portion of the opinion and judgment concluding that Tennessee Mutual was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability coverage for defendant William Clabo.
The trial court correctly decided this issue in its order granting Tennessee Mutual’s motion for summary judgment. Applying princi*114pies drawn from family exclusion clause cases, the trial court concluded, as a matter of law, that the policy provision excluding coverage for bodily injury to the named insured did not violate Georgia public policy because enforcing the exclusion did not leave an insured unfairly exposed to unanticipated liability, or leave an innocent injured party unprotected.
Under Georgia’s statutory mandate for complete automobile liability insurance coverage, family exclusion provisions in a policy excluding coverage, where tort immunity would not otherwise preclude liability, “are not per se prohibited, but must be individually evaluated to determine whether they are against public policy.” Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Preferred Risk &c. Co., 257 Ga. 355, 356 (359 SE2d 665) (1987). In applying this public policy analysis, “[a] clear thread of consistency runs through each of these cases as they apply the dual policies of protection for innocent victims of negligent members of the motoring public and protection of the insured against unfair exposure to unanticipated liability. This results in a basic rule that if either of the interests dealt with in those cases is left unprotected, the exclusionary clause in the insurance contract offends public policy.” Stepho v. Allstate Ins. Co., 259 Ga. 475, 476 (383 SE2d 887) (1989).
Leslie Clabo was the owner of the automobile and the named insured on the policy insuring the automobile. She is suing the driver, William Clabo, for injuries she sustained as a passenger in the automobile. William Clabo was driving the automobile with the permission of his ex-wife, Leslie Clabo, and as a “covered person” under the policy was insured against any bodily injury and property damage for which he becomes legally liable because of the accident. The policy provision at issue excludes liability coverage for bodily injury to the named insured.
If enforcement of the provision excluding coverage either leaves an innocent injured victim unprotected or results in unfair exposure of an insured to unanticipated liability, then the exclusionary clause violates public policy. Stepho, supra at 476. As the named insured in the policy, Leslie Clabo is deemed to know the contents of the policy, including the exclusionary provision, and was in a position to recognize the coverage risks. Southern Guaranty, supra at 356. Though the exclusion leaves her injuries unprotected by the policy, there is no public policy violation because her knowledge or position to know disqualifies her as an innocent unprotected victim. Id. at 356.
Nor does enforcement of this exclusion leave an insured unfairly exposed. As a permissive user of the automobile, William Clabo was a “covered person” and insured against any injuries or damage for which he might become liable as a result of an accident while driving the automobile. As the ex-husband of the named insured, William *115Clabo’s only claim to insured status under the policy was as a permissive user of the automobile. Enforcing the exclusion against coverage for injuries suffered by the named insured would leave him exposed to tort liability for injuries suffered by Leslie Clabo. Since they were no longer married at the time of the accident, no tort immunity applies.
However, as I read Southern Guaranty the public policy against unfair exposure to unanticipated liability was extended under the facts of that case only to protection of the named insured or an insured member of the household of the named insured. Such protection was not extended to Mrs. Gordon, whose only claim to insured status under the owner’s policy was as a permissive user of the automobile. After determining under the first prong of the public policy analysis that the injured party’s knowledge as a named insured disqualified her as an innocent unprotected victim, the court in Southern Guaranty, supra at 356 stated: “[N] either the named insured nor any member of the household was exposed to additional liability because of the exclusion under the facts of the case. From the standpoint of the named insured, coverage of Mrs. Gordon [the driver of the automobile and an insured under the policy only as a permissive user] is important only insofar as he [the named insured] might be exposed to liability as owner of the car for her accident while driving his car. It is clear that under the present facts he will suffer no such exposure.” In Southern Guaranty the passenger injured while Mrs. Gordon was driving was the wife of the named insured so intrafamily tort immunity prevented his exposure. Although Mrs. Gordon was a permissive user insured, and she was not protected from liability by tort immunity, the court did not extend its public policy analysis to her exposure as an insured under the owner’s policy. The court’s reference to “coverage of Mrs. Gordon” apparently referred to the availability of coverage under her own separate automobile policy, which the court considered important only to the extent such coverage would reduce the exposure of the named insured by providing an alternative source of insurance for damages the named insured would have otherwise been liable for absent his tort immunity. I believe this reflects the court’s judgment that, even in the absence of secondary coverage under another automobile policy, one whose only claim to insured status under the owner’s policy is as a permissive user under the so-called omnibus clause cannot claim the lack of coverage under the owner’s policy was unfair or unanticipated.
In the present case, William Clabo, the permissive user of the automobile, is the only insured exposed to liability by enforcement of the policy exclusion. Under these facts the public policy considerations at issue do not extend to that class of insured so the exclusionary clause is not invalidated by his exposure to liability.
*116Decided November 7, 1991
Reconsideration denied December 2, 1991
Feagin & Feagin, John E. Feagin, Jr., John Paul Jones, for appellants.
Rogers, Magruder, Sumner & Brinson, J. Clinton Sumner, Jr., Greene, Buckley, Jones & McQueen, Harold S. White, Jr., H. Lee Pruett, for appellee.
Since the exclusionary clause in Tennessee Mutual’s policy does not violate public policy, the policy provides no liability coverage for William Clabo.
I am authorized to state that Judge Beasley joins in this dissent.