dissenting.
1. Division 1 of the majority opinion holds that there is no coverage to the injured person for bodily injuries because under paragraph 12 of the exclusions it is provided: "This policy does not apply under Part 1; . . . to the liability of any insured for bodily injury to the named insured.” (Emphasis supplied.) However, the policy shows the named insured to be Sue Doss, and the policy further defines "named insured” as including the spouse of the named insured. But the plaintiff in this case is neither the named insured nor the spouse of the named insured, but is a different person, to wit, Sue Lauer. If perchance Sue Doss married a man named Lauer after issuance of the policy, the burden was on the insurer to clearly prove such fact. We find nothing in the record to supply this proof. Therefore, I disagree with the holding in Division 1 by the majority, and summary judgment to the insurer was wrongfully granted.
2. Further, in Division 1 of the majority opinion it is held there was no coverage as to bodily injury because "Bodner failed to cooperate with the insurer by failing to forward the summons and complaint to the insurer which was raised by the third and fourth defenses.” But Bodner was not the holder of the policy, and had not agreed to and was not bound to cooperate and carry out the terms of the policy, because for aught that we know, he knew nothing of the policy or its terms and requirements. He was driving the car by permission of the owner of the policy.
3. But even if the named insured had failed to give *856notice to the insurance company as to Bodner being sued,, that is, if Sue Doss and Sue Lauer are one and the same person, and if she failed to turn a copy of the complaint over to the insurer so it might intervene and answer, much more misconduct than that must be shown against the insured person before the insurance company may be relieved. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have thoroughly threshed this question out in the case of Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Proudfoot, 126 Ga. App. 799 (191 SE2d 870), a 5 to 4 decision, which was reversed by the Supreme Court in 230 Ga. 169 (196 SE2d 131). There it is squarely held by the Supreme Court that the four judges of the minority opinion in the Court of Appeals were right; and that it must be shown by the insurance company that the insurer committed a "wilful and intentional refusal to cooperate,” otherwise coverage exists. (Emphasis supplied.) Merely to show a lack of cooperation is not enough. Also, holding to the same effect, are the following cases, to wit: St. Paul Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Gordon, 116 Ga. App. 658, 660 (158 SE2d 278), written by Judge Eberhardt, concurred in by Judge Hall and Chief Judge Felton; Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Carmical, 99 Ga. App. 98, 103 (107 SE2d 700); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wendler, 117 Ga. App. 227, 231 (160 SE2d 256).
A rather lengthy dissent by Judge Pannell in Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Proudfoot, 126 Ga. App. 799, supra, pp. 802-807, further supports the position taken in this dissent.
The motion for summary judgment makes no allegation that there was a "wilful and intentional refusal to cooperate” — nor did it prove such wilful and intentional refusal to cooperate. Of course, it is too well known to require citation of authority that all allegations and all evidence in a motion for summary judgment must be construed most strongly against the movant for summary judgment. See Holland v. Sanfax Corp., 106 Ga. App. 1 (1) (126 SE2d 442); McCarty v. National Life &c. Ins. Co., 107 Ga. App. 178, 179 (129 SE2d 408).
4. Further, the intervention of the insurer (par. 4) shows in this case that the complaint and notice of the claim was promptly made known to the insurance *857company, and it had every opportunity of protecting itself. See R. 7.