Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Troupe
| Decision Date | 21 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59316,59316 |
| Citation | 267 S.E.2d 834,154 Ga.App. 108 |
| Parties | GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. TROUPE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Glenn Whitley, Tifton, for appellant.
Kenneth R. Hilyer, Tifton, for appellee.
On March 4, 1976, the plaintiff Troupe, a blind 73-year-old former husband of the driver of the car in which he was riding, was involved in an accident as a result of which the operator died. He was examined by one of his firm of family doctors the following day who found bruises and contusions on his arms and chest but did not hospitalize him. He continued to suffer pain in the chest and stomach and after several telephone conversations returned to the office the following week and again on March 23, was hospitalized, diagnosed as suffering from a bleeding duodenal ulcer and treated, to which treatment he responded satisfactorily. The medical expenses amounted to slightly over $1,100. Troupe eventually brought an action for recovery of his medical expenses under the no-fault provisions of the driver's insurance policy with the appellant, and the jury returned a verdict for the expenses plus penalty, attorney fees and $2,000 punitive damages for refusal to pay the claim. The insurer appeals.
1. As to the basic coverage, the insurer under Code § 56-3402b(c) pays for medical expenses resulting from bodily injury "arising out of the operation . . . of a motor vehicle which is accidental as to the person" claiming benefits provided under Code § 56-3403b(b). It is interesting to note that the words "arising out of" which have so often been construed in workers' compensation cases are the touchstone of liability under no-fault. They are commonly considered as meaning that the designated cause is a contributing proximate cause of the injury: (an accident arises out of the employment when it arises because of it, as when the employment is a contributing proximate cause, Thornton v. Hartford Acc., etc., Co., 198 Ga. 786, 32 S.E.2d 816, 1945) or where there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the predicate and its subject (here the accident and the injury, rather than the employment and the injury). General Fire, etc., Co. v. Bellflower, 123 Ga.App. 864(4), 182 S.E.2d 678 (1971). The threshold question is whether the operating force bears such a causal connection with the result that the injury would not have occurred without it, regardless of what other concurrent causes also exist, for "A juridical cause need not be the sole cause." Long Const. Co. v. Ryals, 102 Ga.App. 66(2), 115 S.E.2d 726, 728 (1960). From the evidence the jury were authorized to find that although the plaintiff had some hyperacidity of the stomach he had not suffered from an ulcer until the weeks immediately following a most traumatic accident; that ulcers frequently develop as a result of stress, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bankers Life and Cas. Co. v. Crenshaw
...or that his opinion was inadmissible because fraudulently rendered, the rule should hold. See Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Troupe, 154 Ga.App. 108, 267 S.E.2d 834, 836 (1980); Hermitage Health and Life Insurance Co. v. Baggs, 115 Ga.App. 138, 154 S.E.2d 270, 273 In the ca......
-
Chambers v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
...See Thornton v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 198 Ga. 786, 787, 32 S.E.2d 816 (1945). See also Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Troupe, 154 Ga.App. 108, 109(1), 267 S.E.2d 834 (1980) (in case involving dispute over no-fault automobile insurance coverage, court notes distinction between “contr......
-
First of Georgia Ins. Co. v. Worthington
...had reasonable and probable cause to make the defense which it proffered to the plaintiff's claim. See Ga. Farm etc. Ins. Co. v. Troupe, 154 Ga.App. 108, 110(2), 267 S.E.2d 834; Ga. International Life Ins. Co. v. Harden, 158 Ga.App. 450, 454(2), 280 S.E.2d 5. The second enumeration of error......
-
Sentry Indem. Co. v. Sharif
...on condition that the plaintiff write off the ... penalty and attorney fees; otherwise reversed." Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Troupe, 154 Ga.App. 108, 110, 267 S.E.2d 834 (1980). 3. The remaining enumerations of error presented in the main appeal are either without merit or rendered mo......