As spotted on Law.com Radar, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.'s attorneys at Taylor English Duma filed a motion for a declaratory judgment against Southern Commercial Roof Tech.

In the suit, State Farm Mutual seeks a determination from the court to allow it to deny coverage in a Dec. 19, 2020, crash in which Southern Commercial Roof Tech employee Timothy Lewis collided his work truck with a vehicle driven by Richard Weston of Florida.

Lewis had been running a personal errand at the time of the crash.

"There is uncertainty on behalf of State Farm Mutual on whether coverage should be afforded to defendant Lewis for the claims of defendant Weston under the policy," said lead counsel John C . Patton with Taylor English Duma on behalf of State Farm. "It is uncertain whether, under existing Georgia law, defendant Lewis was using the repair vehicle at the time of the accident within the scope of Southern Commercial's consent, and consequently whether defendant Lewis qualifies as an insured for purposes of the policy's liability coverage."

State Farm Mutual argued that, because Lewis had not been using the company vehicle for work-related travel at the time of the crash, the court should decide whether the insurer was responsible for covering its client's employee.

Counsel for Weston, the injured driver in the crash with the employee, issued a 30-day time limited demand on May 11 to State Farm Mutual, seeking payment of the policy limits of $1 million as compensation for his injuries.

Company Vehicle, Personal Errand

On two occasions prior to the accident, Southern Commercial had granted Lewis permission to use the company vehicle to run personal errands. However, State Farm Mutual said in the suit, Lewis failed to acquire permission on the day of the collision.

"The policy provides liability coverage for insureds, which is defined by the policy as either the named insureds or 'any person for his or her use' of the repair vehicle provided that '[s]uch vehicle must be used within the scope of your consent,'" the complaint read.

The insurance agency conceded that Lewis, as an employee of Southern Commercial Roof Tech, had the company's consent to drive the vehicle for work-related travel. But it argued he lacked such consent for nonwork-related travel, particularly on the day of the accident.

State Farm Mutual also highlighted that vehicle-use conditions outlined in Southern Commercial's own repair vehicle policy stated the "truck is to be used only for travel back and forth to work, unless on an emergency repair."

With both circumstances void, the insurance agency asked the the court to enter a judgment in its favor, concluding that the policy afforded no liability coverage to Lewis for Weston's claims and, that as such, State Farm Mutual could legally deny liability coverage.

"Given Weston's time limited demand, State Farm Mutual is in a position of uncertainty and insecurity," Patton said. "State Farm Mutual respectfully prays for a trial by jury and that this court enter a judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual as requested above, and such other relief as this court deems reasonable and appropriate."