Hanvey v. Georgia Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 February 1914
• Parties: HANVEY v. GEORGIA LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

81 S.E. 206

141 Ga. 389

HANVEY v. GEORGIA LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 23, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

The petition in this case was not subject to general demurrer.

Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; Henry C. Hammond Judge.

Action by George Hanvey against the Georgia Life Insurance Company. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

C. E Dunbar, of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

Archibald Blackshear, of Augusta, for defendant in error.

HILL J.

George Hanvey brought suit against the Georgia Life Insurance Company to recover an amount alleged to have been expended by him for repairing damages to an automobile. The action was based on a contract of insurance. Plaintiff averred "That under said policy, and especially under the following part of clause 2 thereof, to wit: 'Clause Two. Damage to Automobiles of Assured. Against loss or damage to any automobile herein described, including its operating equipment while attached thereto, if sustained within the period covered by this policy and if caused solely by collision with another object, either moving or stationary' "--he had sustained the loss sued for. He further averred: "That on or about April 25, 1911 plaintiff, while himself operating the automobile covered by said policy, sustained damages to the same caused solely by collision with another object, the same being the bank or side of the ditch on what is known as the Sand Bar Ferry road; * * * said automobile leaving the roadbed of said Sand Bar Ferry road and running into the ditch on the side of said road, and into the bank on the farther side of said ditch, and turning over." A copy of the policy sued on was attached to the petition and marked "Exhibit A." Clause 2 of the policy, immediately following the language above quoted, and as a part of the same sentence, contained the following words: "Excluding, however, * * * all loss or damage caused by striking any portion of the roadbed or any impediment consequent upon the condition thereof."

The defendant, after demurring on the ground that no cause of action was stated and that there was no allegation in the petition entitling the plaintiff to recover, proceeded as follows: "Specially demurring, this defendant says: That it affirmatively appears from the allegations made in the petition of plaintiff, and from 'Exhibit A,' attached to plaintiff's petition,...