A-22-0406, General Collection Co. v. Ralisa Leaman and Michael Leaman (Appellants) v. Golden Rule Ins. Co.
Hall County District Court, Judge Patrick M. Lee
Attorney for Appellant: Jared J. Krejci (Smith, Johnson, Allen, Connick & Hansen)
Attorney for Appellee: Kalissa A. Kleine (Stinson LLP d/b/a Stinson Leonard Street LLP)
Civil Action: Contract; Insurance Coverage
Action Taken by Trial Court: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Golden Rule, concluding there was no genuine issue of fact as to coverage of the Leaman’s claims for treatment of a lump in Ralissa’s breast that led to a diagnosis of cancer, as it was a preexisting condition not covered under the insurance policy. The court also denied the Leaman’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Did the district court err in granting Golden Rule’s motion for summary judgment and denying the Leamans’ motion for partial summary judgment? Did the district court err in admitting Exhibit 5 over the Leamans’ hearsay, authentication, and lack of foundation objections? Did the district court err in not determining that the policy provided coverage for Ralisa’s breast cancer treatments based on the undisputed admissible evidence? Did the district court err in determining that the policy did not cover Ralisa’s breast cancer treatments despite the doctrine of waiver due to Golden Rule’s retention of the premiums the Leamans paid for the policy? Did the district court err in not interpreting the policy to find coverage for Ralisa’s breast cancer treatments? Even if Exhibit 5 was properly admitted and coverage was not created due to Golden Rule retaining the Leamans’ premiums, did the district court err in granting Golden Rule’s motion for summary judgment based on an absence of undisputed facts and inferences?