Court Opinion

ID: 9590595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:56:18.275949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:44.846659
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the judgment affirming summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-insurer, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Nationwide”), in this instance. In my view, there is an ambiguity in Nationwide’s homeowners policy, excluding liability coverage for personal injuries arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. This ambiguity lies in the distinction between a motor vehicle as a motorized bicycle or moped designed for travel on public roads or subject to motor vehicle registration, on the one hand, and a motorized golf cart, snowmobile or other motorized land vehicle designed for use off public roads, on the other hand. These terms were selected by the insurer and presumably mean something different from each other. “ £[W]ords, like people, are judged by the com*540pany they keep.’ Anderson v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., 251 Ga. 556 (307 SE2d 499) (1983). Where the phrasing of an insurance policy is so confusing that an average policyholder cannot make out the boundaries of coverage, there is a genuine ambiguity. See Gary L. Shaw Builders v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co., 182 Ga. App. 220, 224 (355 SE2d 130) (1987). In the instant case, the meaning of [Nationwide’s exclusion for personal injuries arising from the use of a motor vehicle] is far from clear.” Ga. Baptist Children’s Homes &c. v. Essex Ins. Co., 207 Ga. App. 346 (1), 347 (427 SE2d 798).
Decided May 6, 1996
Reconsideration denied May 28, 1996
Butler, Wooten, Overby & Cheely, Robert D. Cheely, Patrick A. Dawson, Keith A. Pittman, for appellants.
Temples, Strickland & Counts, Gregg P. Counts, for appellee.
Moreover, I believe that to apply the ambiguous exclusion in this instance defeats the reasonable expectations of the insured homeowner. In the recent whole court decision of Hinton v. Interstate Guaranty Ins. Co., 220 Ga. App. 699 (1) (470 SE2d 292), this Court decided that a farmer’s tractor was not a motor vehicle subject to registration, and held that a motorist’s collision on a public road with this unregistered tractor was not a covered event under the uninsured motorist provisions of that plaintiff’s own automobile insurance policy. It is my view, that the rationale employed therein has effectively overruled, sub silentio, the holdings of Addison v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., 155 Ga. App. 536, 537 (271 SE2d 674) and Prince v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 143 Ga. App. 512 (239 SE2d 198). As it is my view that a jury issue is created by the ambiguous terms of Nationwide’s prolix exclusion, I respectfully dissent from the judgment of affirmance.