Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52902,No. 2,52902,2 |
| Citation | 140 Ga.App. 657,231 S.E.2d 553 |
| Parties | COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
McClure, Ramsay, Struble & Dickerson, Robert B. Struble, Toccoa, for appellant.
Harvey, Willard & Elliott, E. C. Harvey, Jr., Decatur, Greene, Buckley, DeRieux & Jones, John D. Jones, Daniel A. Angelo, Atlanta, Gross, Stowe & Shepherd, Millard B. Shepherd, Jr., Toccoa, Neely, Freeman & Hawkins, Albert H. Parnell, Atlanta, for appellee.
We granted Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company's application for an interlocutory appeal from a denial of its motion for summary judgment. American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, plaintiff below, brought an action for Declaratory Judgment against the several named defendants seeking to establish which insurance coverage would be applicable to persons involved in a vehicle collision between its insured, William A. Ryan, and James M. Free, who was insured by Cotton States under a 'Family Combination Automobile Policy.'
Mr. Free was an employee of the State of Georgia at the Alto Industrial Institute and was in the performance of his duties at the time of the collision. He was the driver of a thirty-two passenger bus-owned by the state. Mr. Ryan was operating a private automobile. Cotton States contends that its policyholder, Mr. Free, was not covered by its insurance policy for this type of accident and moved for summary judgment. It was denied. Cotton States appeals. Held:
1. Insurance liability coverage was extended by Cotton States' policy to 'owned' and 'non-owned' automobiles. This 'school-bus' type, 32 passenger bus, owned by the state, was definitely a 'non-owned' automobile. Under the definition section of the policy, the word 'automobile' was broadly defined to include land motor vehicles 'with four or more wheels,' but a "non-owned automobile' means a private passenger, farm or utility automobile . . .' A private passenger automobile was limited to 'a four-wheel private passenger, station wagon, or jeep type automobile.' This was not a 'four-wheel' automobile. Neither did it come within the definition of a 'farm automobile.' 'Utility automobile' was defined as a 'four-wheel automobile . . . of the pick-up body, sedan delivery or panel truck type not used for business or commercial purposes.' This non-owned vehicle does not come within any of the defined types covered by the policy's extended coverage.
2. Even if the policy coverage could be construed to include this type vehicle, under subsection (i)(2) of the exclusions, insurance coverage of a 'non-owned' automobile is not extended to a vehicle used by the insured 'while such person is employed or otherwise engaged in . . . any other business or occupation of the insured . . .' Thus, policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Dodgen
...beneficiary is barred or precluded from recovery under the policy's exclusionary provisions. See Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Amer. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 140 Ga.App. 657, 231 S.E.2d 553; Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Collins, 136 Ga.App. 671, 222 S.E.2d 828; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bish......
-
Colonial Ins. Co. v. Ramsey
...Insurance Company v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, 494 N.E.2d 358 (Ind.App.1986); Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 140 Ga. App. 657, 231 S.E.2d 553 (1976). And it has also been decided that a tank truck is not a "passenger type automobile or lig......
-
Greer v. IDS Life Ins. Co.
...burden of showing that the exclusion exists and the facts of the case come within it. (Cit.)" Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 140 Ga.App. 657, 658, 231 S.E.2d 553. IDS has not met its burden In order to show that the facts of the case came within the exclusion, ......
-
Benton Bros. Ford Co., Inc. v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Mut. Liab ... Ins. Co., 140 Ga.App. 657(3), 231 S.E.2d 553 (1976). Accordingly, the decision of the trial court ... ...