Georgia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Criterion Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48614,No. 3,48614,3 |
| Citation | 206 S.E.2d 88,131 Ga.App. 339 |
| Parties | GEORGIA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. CRITERION INSURANCE COMPANY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sharpe, Hartley & Newton, W. Ward Newton, Marvin Hartley, Jr., Lyons, for appellant.
Fendig, Dickey, Fendig & Whelchel, Anthony D. Smith, J. Thomas Whelchel, Brunswick, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Horace Pye purchased a policy of automobile liability insurance from Georgia Mutual Insurance Company covering a 1968 Buick LeSabre, his only automobile. Under Section IV of the policy, captioned 'Automobile Defined, Trailers, Private Passenger Automobile, Including Automatic Insurance,' coverage is also afforded to a 'Newly Acquired Automobile,' defined as 'an automobile, ownership of which is acquired by the named insured or his spouse if a resident of the same household, if (i) . . . the company insures all automobiles owned by the named insured and such spouse on the date of its delivery, and (ii) the named insured or such spouse notifies the company within thirty days following such delivery date . . . The named insured shall pay any additional premium required because of the application of the insurance to such newly acquired automobile.'
On February 3, 1972, Mr. and Mrs. Pye bought an additional automobile, a 1965 Mustang, for the use of their minor son Deryl; and 29 days later Deryl, while operating the Mustang, was in a collision with Homer Horton, III, a minor who was operating a motorcycle belonging to his mother. No notice of the acquisition of the Mustang and of the subsequent collision was given to Georgia Mutual until June 27, 1972, when the Pyes gave such notice orally to Littlefield Insurance Agency, from whom the policy had been purchased.
In the meantime Homer Horton and his mother, Mrs. Inez B. Horton, had given notice and made demand upon Criterion Insurance Company, their uninsured motorist carrier. Criterion instituted the present declaratory judgment action, alleging that Georgia Mutual had denied coverage to the Pyes, and seeking a declaratory judgment that such denial was not legally sustainable. Georgia Mutual moved for summary judgment, contending that its policy afforded no coverage to the Pyes since no notice of the acquisition of the Mustang was given within 30 days of its delivery, and since notice of the accident was not given as required by Condition 1 of the policy. The trial court denied the motion, and Georgia Mutual appeals with a certificate of review. Held:
1. (a) 7 AmJur2d, 407, Automobile Insurance § 100 (Emphasis supplied.) The cases are collected in the annotation at 34 ALR2d 936, § 7 and supplements, and hold almost without exception that coverage on the newly acquired automobile is effective automatically during the notice period irrespective of whether notice of acquisition is given. It is said that the consideration for the automatic coverage during the 30-day period is the premium paid on the previously owned vehicle, whether one or more; that the requirement of notice and payment of additional premium is a condition subsequent which must be satisfied in order to maintain the coverage on the newly-acquired automobile beyond the 30-day period to the end of the policy term;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mote v. Mote
...119 Ga.App. 676, 168 S.E.2d 196; Canal Ins. Co. v. Woodard, 121 Ga.App. 356, 358(1), 173 S.E.2d 727; Georgia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Criterion Ins. Co., 131 Ga.App. 339(1b), 206 S.E.2d 88. However, after having given this correct charge, the court later charged Code Ann. § 68-415a(a) verbatim in a......
-
Hill v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
...this was a reasonable basis. The first case the Plaintiff points to in support of his proposition is Georgia Mutual Ins. Co. v. Criterion Ins. Co., 131 Ga.App. 339, 206 S.E.2d 88 (1974). In that action, the Pyes bought a vehicle for their minor son. Twenty-nine days after they purchased thi......
-
Farm & City Ins. Co. v. Anderson
...a rule. E.g., Central Nat'l Ins. Co. v. LeMars Mut. Ins. Co., 294 F.Supp. 1396, 1401 (S.D.Iowa 1968); Georgia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Criterion Ins. Co., 131 Ga.App. 339, 206 S.E.2d 88, 90 (1974); Glacier Gen. Assur. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 150 Mont. 452, 436 P.2d 533, 536 (1968); M......
-
Johnson v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co.
...is our opinion that [these] issue[s] must be decided contrary to [Protective's] position on the basis of Ga. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Criterion Ins. Co., 131 Ga.App. 339, 206 S.E.2d 88 (1974). In Ga. Mut. this court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to the insurer--who had raised the identica......