as well as on the date of the accident. It is also undisputed that Lockhart’s mother failed to list Lockhart as a household resident on the insurance application even though she was required to do so. Lockhart’s mother’s acceptance of the policy, which contained the specific contract language, “[i]n consideration of the premium charged,” and her payment of premiums was sufficient to establish consideration. See Middlebrooks, supra, 222 Ga. App. at 786. As a result, the clear and unambiguous exclusion related to unlisted household residents barred coverage for Lockhart’s accident. Cf. id. (driver exclusion that was clear, unambiguous and supported by consideration was enforceable); Southeastern Security Ins. Co. v. Empire Banking Co., 230 Ga. App. 755, 757 (3) (498 SE2d 282) (1998) (<HOLDING>). 3. Kovacs contends that Cornerstone’s attempt
holding that coverage was excluded where insured failed to notify insurance company of all operators and household members as required holding that insured cannot demand reimbursement for defense insurer had no opportunity to control if insured does not promptly notify insurer of facts triggering coverage holding that a household exclusion in the policy was void insofar as it denied coverage in the amount required by  3031902 but it was valid as to any coverage exceeding that amount holding that an insurance company which chose not to defend its insured could not later deny coverage by asserting the legally obligated to pay provision in the policy after the insured reached a settlement where the injured party agreed to collect only against insurance proceeds holding that no fiduciary relationship existed between insured and insurance company providing workers compensation coverage where insured sued for overpayment of premiums thus there was no basis for tolling the statute of limitations