Georgia appeals court affirms insurers can deny coverage for unauthorized vehicle use, reinforcing the power of auto policy exclusions.
On September 10, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Georgia handed down its decision in Dollar v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, a case that highlights the importance of clear policy language and the limits of liability coverage in the insurance industry. The ruling is likely to resonate with insurance professionals who routinely navigate the complexities of policy exclusions and claims disputes.
The dispute began after Queen Dollar’s son died in a car accident on November 21, 2020. He was a passenger in a truck owned by David Holder and driven by Sammy Walker. Dollar filed a wrongful death lawsuit against both Walker and Holder, alleging, among other things, that Holder had negligently entrusted the vehicle to Walker.
Holder’s automobile liability insurer, Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, responded by filing a separate action. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to provide coverage for Walker under Holder’s policy. At the center of the dispute was a specific exclusion in the policy: Georgia Farm Bureau “does not provide Liability Coverage for any ‘insured’ . . . [u]sing a vehicle without a reasonable belief that the ‘insured’ is entitled to do so.”
Georgia Farm Bureau Group is one of the largest auto insurance companies in Georgia. Get to know them in this guide.
The facts presented to the court were clear. Holder had a standing arrangement with his employee, Laterran Green, who was allowed to use the truck for work related to Holder’s rental properties. However, Holder had explicitly instructed Green that Walker was not permitted to drive the truck. Green confirmed that he never gave Walker permission to use the vehicle. On the day of the accident, Green left the truck parked at the trailer park where Walker lived, with the keys inside. Walker, who was intoxicated at the time, took the truck without permission. Holder reported the vehicle stolen, and Walker was later criminally charged with theft.
After Dollar’s wrongful death suit was filed, Georgia Farm Bureau argued that the policy’s exclusion applied. The insurer maintained that Walker did not have a reasonable belief that he was entitled to use the truck, and therefore, the policy did not provide coverage for the accident. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Georgia Farm Bureau.
On appeal, Dollar argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Holder had permitted Walker to use the truck, and further contended that the exclusion violated Georgia’s public policy. The appellate court rejected both arguments. The judges found no evidence in the record that Walker had ever been given permission to drive the truck, nor that he could have reasonably believed he was entitled to do so. The court emphasized that neither Holder nor Green had ever allowed Walker to drive the vehicle, and Holder had reported it stolen immediately after Walker took it.
The court also addressed the public policy argument, noting that Georgia law allows insurers to set the terms of their policies, including exclusions, as long as they are not contrary to law. The judges cited prior Georgia cases upholding similar exclusions and concluded that limiting coverage to permissive users does not violate public policy.
For insurance professionals, the decision in Dollar v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company serves as a clear reminder of the importance of precise policy wording and the enforceability of exclusions. The case demonstrates how courts will closely examine both the facts and the language of the policy when determining coverage, especially in situations involving unauthorized use of a vehicle.
The outcome reinforces the principle that liability coverage hinges on permission and reasonable belief, and that exclusions for unauthorized use remain a powerful tool for insurers managing risk. For those in the insurance industry, the case is a timely example of how contract terms and factual details can determine the outcome of a claim.
