Doerpinghaus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 46158
| Decision Date | 07 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46158,No. 1,46158,1 |
| Citation | 185 S.E.2d 615,124 Ga.App. 627 |
| Parties | Elsie P. DOERPINGHAUS et al. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Frank Love, Jr., Randall L. Hughes, Atlanta, for appellants.
Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Palmer H. Ansley, Arnold Wright, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is an action for declaratory relief by plaintiff, Allstate, against the defendant, who is the widow and executrix of the estate of her deceased husband. The case was tried by the court upon stipulated facts which resulted in judgment for the plaintiff which has been appealed. The issue is whether the policy of automobile insurance should be interpreted to provide $10,000 or $20,000 coverage for bodily injury to one person caused by an uninsured motorist. The defendant's deceased husband died as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile collision which involved one of the insured automobiles and another automobile driven by an uninsured motorist. The amendatory endorsement providing uninsured motorist coverage lists a schedule wherein the limits of liability are expressed '$10,000 each person; $20,000 each accident.' A clause limiting liability in the endorsement provides: '(a) The limit of bodily injury liability stated in the schedule as applicable to 'each person' is the limit of the company's liability for all damages, including damages for care or loss of services, because of bodily injury sustained by one person as the result of any one accident and, subject to the above provision respecting each person, the limit of such liability stated in the schedule as applicable to 'each accident' is the total limit of the company's liability for all damages, including damages for care or loss of services, because of bodily injury sustained by two or more persons as the result of any one accident.' The plaintiff's insurance company also issued two separate 'insurance extension certificates,' one for each vehicle, upon renewal of the policy. Each certificate lists a separate premium for the uninsured motorist coverage as well as all other coverages as to each automobile. The certificates contain this language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stamper
...205 (1980); McLellan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Fla.App., 366 So.2d 811 (1979); Doerpinghaus v. Allstate Insurance Co., 124 Ga.App. 627, 185 S.E.2d 615 (1971); Jeffries v. Stewart, 159 Ind.App. 701, 309 N.E.2d 448 (1974); Nall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co......
-
Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Tucker
...Mutual Ins. Co., 255 Or. 425, 467 P.2d 963; Otto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2 Ill.App.3d 58, 275 N.E.2d 766; Doerpinghaus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 124 Ga.App. 627, 185 S.E.2d 615. Contra: Employers Liability Assur. Corp. v. Jackson, 289 Ala. 673, 270 So.2d 806; Tucker v. Government Employees Ins. C......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Harper
...were insured under the Corvair policy since they fell in the class of the named insured and his spouse. Doerpinghaus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 124 Ga.App. 627, 628, 185 S.E.2d 615, 616, is not contolling here since in that case the court found that there was only one policy involved. It was the......
-
Moomaw v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
...Mutual Insurance Co., 267 A.2d 608 (Del.Super.1970); Morrison Assurance Co. v. Polak, 230 So.2d 6 (Fla.1969); Doerpinghaus v. Allstate Insurance Co., 124 Ga.App. 627, 185 S. E.2d 615 (1971); Otto v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2 Ill.App.3d 58, 275 N.E.2d 766 (1971); Arminski v. United States Fi......