American Cas. Co. v. Fisher
Decision Date | 03 December 1942 |
Docket Number | 14337. |
Citation | 23 S.E.2d 395,195 Ga. 136 |
Parties | AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. v. FISHER. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
See also, 194 Ga. 157, 21 S.E.2d 68.
Smith Smith & Bloodworth and Croom Partridge, all of Atlanta for plaintiff in error.
Neely Marshall & Greene and W. Neal Baird, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Before a ruling was made by the Court of Appeals in this case, a question respecting the liability under the insurance policy involved was propounded to this court; but deeming the question incomplete, we declined to answer it. Fisher v. American Casualty Co., 194 Ga. 157, 21 S.E.2d 68. The Court of Appeals then rendered an opinion concurred in by two of the Judges.
Fisher v. American Casualty Co., 67 Ga.App. 784, 21 S.E.2d 306, 309. We granted certiorari. A full statement of the facts may be found in the report of this decision by the Court of Appeals, and only necessary reference to the pertinent facts will be here made. As a preliminary part of the decision the Court of Appeals made the following statement:
'
The Court of Appeals in its decision then treated the accident resulting from the negligence of the employee of the Underwood Company in removing an adding machine from a table on which he had placed another adding machine, of which he was making delivery, as coming within the terms of liability imposed upon the insurance company under its indemnity contract. The insuring clause of the policy was as follows: "To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law for damages, including damages for care and loss of services because of bodily injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person or persons, caused by accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the automobile." It was further stated on the face of the policy:
The suit resulting in a judgment against Barner merely declared upon his negligence in respect to his manner of handling the adding machine, and in removing it from a table which it was charged in the petition he should have known would become upset "immediately upon removal of the machine which had been in temporary use." It was charged in the petition that it was Barner's duty, "under his contract or arrangement with the Underwood-Elliott-Fisher Company, to install said new machine on the desk provided by the Government for that purpose," and to do this it was necessary to remove the other machine which had been in temporary use. No mention was made of any automobile or of any connection between the delivery or installation of the machine and any particular kind of transportation. It was simply a suit for personal injuries growing out of the aforementioned negligence. But in the present action against the casualty company the plaintiff set out by amendment her claim that at the time of the injury Barner was completing the delivery of the machine in the furtherance of his business for the Underwood Company, that the delivery was incidental to the use of the insured automobile as a commercial car, and that this delivery constituted a part of the unloading of the machine. The Court of Appeals accepted the theory presented by these latter allegations.
Contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are subject to the rule of law that the intention of the parties must be ascertained. Code, § 20-702. See, in connection with interpretation of contracts, Code, § 20-704 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schmidt v. Utilities Ins. Co.
...independent act, or intervening cause wholly disassociated from, independent of and remote from the use of the trucks. See, American Casualty Co. v. Fisher, supra; Maryland Casualty Co. v. United Corporation, supra; Zurich Gen. Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Mutual Liability Ins. Co., sup......
-
Richfield Oil Corp. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 5556
...the place of rest within or on the vehicle. Stammer v. Kitzmiller, 226 Wis. 348, 276 N.W. 629 (1937); American Casualty Co. v. Fisher, 195 Ga. 136, 23 S.E.2d 395, 144 A.L.R. 533 (1942). The majority of the courts have adopted a broader construction and have held that the phrases in question......
-
American Auto. Ins. Co. v. American Fidelity & CasualtyCo. of Richmond, Virginia
...Affirmed. SHINN, P.J., and WOOD, J., concur. 1 Stammer v. Kitzmiller, 226 Wis. 348, 276 N.W. 629, 631; American Casualty Co. v. Fisher, 195 Ga. 136, 23 S.E.2d 395, 144 A.L.R. 533, followed in Fisher v. American Casualty Co., 68 Ga.App. 806, 24 S.E.2d 229; St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. S......
-
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co.
...e.g., Hodges Appliance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 133 Ga.App. 936, 213 S.E.2d 46 (1975); American Casualty Co. v. Fisher, 195 Ga. 136, 23 S.E.2d 395 (1942); State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Casualty Underwriters, Inc., 266 Minn. 536, 124 N.W.2d 185 (1963); Seni......