Alley v. Great American Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 62301,62301 |
| Citation | 287 S.E.2d 613,160 Ga.App. 597 |
| Parties | ALLEY v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Billy N. Jones, Hinesville, for appellant.
John Pirkle, Hinesville, Luhr Beckmann, Jr., Andrew J. Hill, Savannah, for appellee.
Deborah Jo Alley brought this action against Orville L. Menges to recover damages she incurred as the result of a collision between a vehicle in which she was a passenger and a truck operated by Menges, an employee of the State of Georgia. At the time of the collision Menges was operating a 2 1/2 ton truck owned by the United States Army. Menges filed a third-party action against both Allstate Insurance Company, his personal insurer, and against Great American Insurance Company, insurer of the employees of the State of Georgia. Both insurers filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court entered an order which granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Menges was operating a "non-owned" vehicle in the course of his employment, an exclusion from the coverage provided under Allstate's policy with Menges; no appeal was taken from that order. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order granting Great American's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the policy provided coverage on state-owned vehicles and those under long-term lease to the state but did not include the federally owned truck operated by Menges at the time of the collision. Alley brings this appeal from that order, contending that a material question of fact remained as to whether the truck operated by Menges at the time of the collision was under a long-term lease to the State of Georgia.
The evidence of record showed that Menges was a state merit system employee at the time of the collision. He was employed by the National Guard Training Center (NGTC) at Fort Stewart as a maintenance worker. The State of Georgia contracts annually with the federal government to furnish facilities and logistical support for National Guard and Army Reserve units training at Fort Stewart. NGTC is charged with implementing this contract on behalf of the state. As a part of this contractual arrangement the federal government provides, at no cost, approximately 25 federally owned motor vehicles to the state for use by NGTC in the performance of services under the contract. These vehicles are hand receipted by the supervisor of NGTC from the federal Organizational Maintenance Shop (OMS) No. 6 in Hinesville, Georgia. Although subject to recall at any time, these vehicles usually remain in the custody and control of NGTC for the life of the vehicle--up to 5 years, depending on use. OMS provides all vehicle maintenance; NGTC provides only the operators, gasoline and oil. At the time of the collision Menges was operating one of these federally owned vehicles in the course of his employment at NGTC.
By statute state employees shall be provided with group liability insurance which provides, up to the limit specified in the policy, protection from liability for damages arising out of the operation of any state-owned motor vehicle by the state employee during the course of his employment. Code Ann. § 89-932. 1 Pursuant to this statute Great American issued a policy in which it agreed: "To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury...sustained by any person, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile." The insured was defined as follows: "a) With respect to the insurance for bodily injury liability and for property damage liability, the unqualified [word] 'insured' includes (1) any employee of the State of Georgia while operating an automobile owned by the state, or leased by the state under long term agreement..." In addition to several standard exclusions from liability contained in the printed portion of the policy (the automobile when used as a public conveyance, liability assumed under contract, the automobile when used for towing, etc.), several other exclusions were typed on an endorsement thereto. These additional exclusions provided that coverage under the policy did not apply: "a) To any insured while engaged in the business of his employer with respect to bodily injury to a fellow employee of such employer injured in the course of his employment; b) To any automobile owned by such employee of the State of Georgia, any instrumentality (authority) or the spouse, or any resident of the same household of such employee or spouse; c) To any insured while employed in or otherwise engaged in duties in connection with an automobile business; d) To any automobile while used in the business or occupation of the named employee except an automobile operated or occupied by such employee; e) Under Division 1 of Coverage C, to bodily injury to or sickness, disease or death of any employee of the State of Georgia if benefits therefor are in whole or in part either payable or required to be provided under workmen's compensation law, or any workmen's compensation self insurance program."
The truck being operated by Menges at the time of the subject collision was neither owned by nor leased to the state but, rather, was a bailment which conveyed no property interest in the truck to the state but a mere right to use. Code Ann. §§ 12-101, 85-802. Although not included specifically for coverage under the terms of the policy issued by Great American, neither was a truck such as the one herein excluded specifically from coverage. The issue presented for resolution in this case is whether the subject insurance policy provided liability coverage to a state employee who, during the course of his employment, operated a motor vehicle which was neither owned by nor leased to the state.
We begin with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Ga.
...duplicity, indistinctness, an uncertainty of meaning or expression." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Alley v. Great American Ins. Co., 160 Ga. App. 597, 599, 287 S.E.2d 613 (1981). The "COVERAGE A–DWELLING"3 portion of Lee's policy with Mercury states:We cover:the dwelling on the reside......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stanley, CV 489-254.
...question presented. E.g., Guest v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 714, 715, 310 S.E.2d 241 (1983); Alley v. Great American Ins. Co., 160 Ga.App. 597, 599, 287 S.E.2d 613 (1981). Several canons of contract construction apply in this case. A court must first look to the plain and literal ......
-
Mock v. Cent. Mut. Ins. Co.
...terms.” York Ins. Co. v. Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc. , 223 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting Alley v. Great Am. Ins. Co. , 160 Ga.App. 597, 287 S.E.2d 613, 616 (1981) ). Accordingly, an insurer bears the burden of demonstrating that an exclusion set forth in the policy applies t......
-
Crawford v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
...question presented. E.g., Guest v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 168 Ga.App. 714, 715, 310 S.E.2d 241 (1983); Alley v. Great American Ins. Co., 160 Ga.App. 597, 599, 287 S.E.2d 613 (1981). Several canons of contract construction apply in this case. First, a court must first look to the plain and li......
-
The Legal
...Old Colony denied coverage, it created a conflict of interest between itself and American Family"). [31] Alley v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 160 Ga. App. 597, 600, 287 S.E.2d 613, 616 (1981). [32] Insurance Services Organization, form CG 00 01 04 13. [33] Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So. 2d 119, ......