In Padgett v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., No. A05A1874, 2005 WL 3359328 (Ga. App. Dec. 12, 2005), a Georgia appeals court held that an ambiguity existed in part of an auto policy's definition of “insured.”

 

Phillip Padgett was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Eathern Walker when the vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Alexander Caravella. Both Padgett and Walker were employed by Walker's father, who owned the vehicle Walker was operating. They were returning to their job site with supplies at the time of the collision.

 

Caravella sued Walker, his father, and Padgett for his injuries. Caravella alleged “that Padgett had negligently entrusted the vehicle to Walker,” although Padgett did not own the vehicle and was not operating it at the time of the accident. Georgia Farm Bureau filed a declaratory judgment to determine if Padgett was an insured under its policy and if it owed Padgett a duty to defend. The trial court found that Padgett was not an insured, and Padgett appealed.

 

In the liability coverage section of the policy, “insured” is defined in part as “any person using 'your covered auto.'” Georgia Farm said that “the term ['using'] is used synonymously with 'operating' in other provisions of the policy.” Padgett countered that “if Georgia Farm intended 'using' to mean 'operating,' it would have employed the term 'operating' in the policy provision.”

 

The words “operate” and “occupy” were both used elsewhere in the policy—as opposed to “using.” The court turned to Merriam Webster for its definition of “use”: “utilize,” “employ,” or “carry out a purpose or action by means of.”

 

On one hand, the court said that the word “use” “encompasses an active role, such as operating a vehicle. On the other hand, it could refer to a more passive role, such as that of a passenger employing a vehicle for transportation.”

 

Since the term's meaning could be interpreted more than one way, the court found it to be ambiguous and construed in favor of Padgett.