Hurst v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company

In Hurst v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company, 266 Ga. 712, 470 S.E.2d 659 (1996), the insurance contract did not contain a definition of the word "entitled." The Georgia Supreme Court reasoned that the exclusion was susceptible of three logical and reasonable interpretations: "That the user must be authorized by law to drive in order to reasonably believe he is entitled to use a vehicle; that the user must have the consent of the owner or apparent owner in order to reasonably believe he is entitled to use the vehicle; or, that the user must have both consent and legal authorization in order to be entitled to use the vehicle. The number of reasonable and logical interpretations makes the clause ambiguous." Hurst, 266 Ga. at 716, 470 S.E.2d at 663.