Barras v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 43834

Decision Date16 September 1968
Docket NumberNo. 43834,No. 2,43834,2
PartiesW. J. BARRAS et al. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

Under the Georgia statute requiring that automobile liability insurance policies include uninsured automobile coverage, and under the uninsured automobile coverage of the policy in this case, an automobile owned by the insured and being operated by a permissive driver is not an 'uninsured automobile.'

This was an action for a declaratory judgment seeking an adjudication that the uninsured automobile coverage of an insurance policy was applicable under the facts alleged. The defendant insurer issued to the plaintiff husband a policy on an automobile owned by him, covering, among other things, bodily injury and property damage liability to the insured (including by definition the wife of the named insured) caused by accident and arising out of the use of an uninsured automobile. The plaintiff wife was injured while riding in the automobile named in the policy, when it was being driven with her permission by a friend who carried no insurance covering her use of the automobile.

Joseph B. Bergen, Savannah, for appellants.

Hitch, Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, Luhr G. C. Beckmann, Jr., Savannah, for appellee.

HALL, Judge.

The policy defined 'uninsured automobile' as '(1) a land motor vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance or use of which (a) there is no bodily injury liability and property damage liability bond or insurance policy in the amounts specified in the Georgia Automobile Financial Responsibility Act, applicable at the time of the accident with respect to any person or organization legally responsible for the use of such vehicle * * * but the term 'Uninsured automobile' shall not include: (i) an automobile defined herein as an 'insured automobile'; (ii) a land motor vehicle owned by the named insured or by any resident of the same household; * * *' 'Insured automobile' was defined as 'an owned automobile, provided the use thereof is by such named insured or spouse or any other person to whom such named insured or spouse has given permission to use such automobile, if the use is within the scope of such permission, * * *'

A Georgia statute (Ga.Laws 1963, p. 588, as amended Code Ann. § 56-407.1(a)) requires, unless rejected by the insured named in the policy, coverage of the insured for 'all sums which he shall be legally...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Locey By and Through Locey v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 17000
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • 18 Octubre 1988
    ...501 So.2d 748 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.) (distinguishing Reid ), rev. denied, 513 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1987)); Barras v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 118 Ga.App. 348, 163 S.E.2d 759 (1968); Hilyard v. Estate of Clearwater, 240 Kan. 362, 729 P.2d 1195 (1986); Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 483 A.2......
  • Mercury Indem. Co. of Illinois v. Kim
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 23 Mayo 2005
    ...law); Lofberg v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 264 Cal.App.2d 306, 70 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1968); Barras v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 118 Ga.App. 348, 163 S.E.2d 759 (1968) (precluding motorist coverage by following uninsured motorist statutes that defined or contemplated uninsur......
  • Rodman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 3 Julio 1973
    ...coverage is excluded as when such coverage does not exist at all. The Georgia and California cases, Barras v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 118 Ga.App. 348, 163 S.E.2d 759 (1968) and Lofberg v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 264 Cal.App.2d 306, 70 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1968) were both......
  • Allen v. West American Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 19 Marzo 1971
    ...that UM coverage prevailed. There is no statutory provision in Kentucky requiring that result. In Barras v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 118 Ga.App. 348, 163 S.E.2d 759, and Barnes v. Powell, 129 Ill.App.2d 16, 262 N.E.2d 334, the holdings were similar to those reached no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT