Hicks v. Continental Ins. Co., 55853
| Decision Date | 31 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 55853,55853 |
| Citation | 245 S.E.2d 482,146 Ga.App. 124 |
| Parties | HICKS v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Adair, Goldthwaite & Daniel, T. Emory Daniel, Atlanta, for appellant.
Phillips, Hart & Mozley, George W. Hart, Michael G. Frick, Atlanta, for appellee.
While driving her automobile, Sherry Hicks was struck and injured by an automobile driven by Maxine Reynolds. Ms. Reynolds was driving an automobile belonging to Taurus Volkswagen which had been provided for her use while her own car was being repaired. The Taurus automobile was covered by a policy of insurance issued to it by the Continental Insurance Company under which Ms. Reynolds became an additional insured. Ms. Hicks filed suit against Ms. Reynolds. A two-page document captioned "Complaint," which was signed but not dated and contained no case number on it nor summons attached thereto, was sent to Continental's claims adjuster. The acknowledgment of service upon Ms. Reynolds was neither dated nor signed. Default judgment was rendered against Ms. Reynolds and demand for payment of the judgment was subsequently made upon Continental, which refused to pay. This suit ensued and after discovery, on hearing in the trial court, Continental's motion for summary judgment was granted and Ms. Hicks' denied. She appeals and we affirm.
As an additional insured Ms. Reynolds was required to elect coverage under the insurance policy. "One who is entitled to be an insured or additional insured under an automobile liability policy is not a party to the contract but has the right to elect whether to come under the coverage offered by the policy." Ericson v. Hill, 109 Ga.App. 759(1)(a), 137 S.E.2d 374 (1964). As explained in the Ericson case, Ibid. p. 761, 137 S.E.2d p. 376.
Ms. Reynolds did not notify Continental of the lawsuit filed against her, and she did not forward her service copy of the complaint to Continental as required by the policy. Unless such action was taken by her there could be no election of coverage. The documents forwarded to Continental by Ms. Hicks'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leventhal v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida
...coverage and comply with all policy conditions or the insurer will have no duty to him under the policy. In Hicks v. Continental Ins. Co., 146 Ga.App. 124, 245 S.E.2d 482 (1978), the tortfeasor was driving a substitute vehicle while her own was being repaired. She was described as a "third ......
-
Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Starnes
...of election" by additional insureds have restated Ericson 's requirement that the election be express. E.g., Hicks v. Continental Ins. Co., 146 Ga.App. 124, 245 S.E.2d 482 (1978). These later decisions did, however, also find exceptions to this requirement. E.g., Leventhal v. American Banke......
-
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Snipes
...3 (1981); Southeastern Stages v. Gen. Fire & Cas. Co., 151 Ga.App. 487, 488(1), 260 S.E.2d 399 (1979); Hicks v. Continental Ins. Co., 146 Ga.App. 124, 125, 245 S.E.2d 482 (1978); Ballew v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 122 Ga.App. 417, 418-419, 177 S.E.2d 172 (1970); Ericson v. Hill, 109 ......
-
Mattison v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...coverage and comply with all policy conditions or the insurer will have no duty to him under the policy. In Hicks v. Continental Ins. Co., 146 Ga.App. 124, 245 S.E.2d 482 (1978), the tortfeasor was driving a substitute vehicle while her own was being repaired. She was described as a 'third ......