Springer v. GEICO General Ins. Co.
Roger Springer was involved in an automobile collision with another driver who was at fault for the accident. The other driver's insurer paid Springer in full for damages to his vehicle and wrote the check jointly to Springer and his selected automobile repair shop. However, the automobile shop failed to repair Springer's vehicle and wrongfully kept the money. Springer then requested his own automobile insurer (Geico General Insurance Company (Geico)) to pay him for the unrepaired damages to his vehicle. Geico denied the claim on the basis that the policy did not cover losses for the automobile shop's wrongful conduct and/or that the policy excluded the claimed losses.
Springer then sued Geico and two related entities seeking a declaration of coverage. After a brief trial based primarily on stipulated facts, the court found Springer did not prove he was "entitled to coverage . . . under the terms of the subject policy of insurance." The court thus entered judgment in defendants' favor. Springer appeals. We affirm.
Comments on Springer v. GEICO General Ins. Co.