BENTON v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (2020)

Following oral argument, and a review of the record, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Zurich American Insurance Company. First, we agree with the district court that Kerby Grading was not operating as a motor carrier under O.C.G.A. § 46-1-1(9)(A)-(B) (2004) at the time it submitted its insurance application to Zurich. Second, even if the evidence created an issue of fact as to whether Kerby was operating as a motor carrier, Zurich did not know this status given the information Kerby provided. See Sapp v. Canal Ins. Co., 288 Ga. 681, 706 S.E.2d 644, 650 (2011) (“[W]hen a insurer purports to issue coverage to an insured which it knows is a motor carrier, the insurer assumes responsibility to indemnify the motoring public for injuries sustained by virtue of the carrier's negligence․”) (emphasis added). Third, at the time of the accident Mr. Landress was driving a dump truck owned by Landress Trucking (not by Kerby). Fourth, Georgia courts have not extended the equitable reformation rationale of Sapp to a scenario like the one here involving the cancellation of a policy for non-payment.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM: