Leverette v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 60401,60401 |
| Citation | 276 S.E.2d 859,157 Ga.App. 175 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | LEVERETTE v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY. |
William H. Hedrick, Albany, for appellant.
K. B. Hodges, Jr., Albany, for appellee.
Appellant brought suit against appellee insurance company (hereinafter "Aetna") seeking to recover medical expenses and lost wages under the "no-fault" provision of his automobile insurance policy. Aetna successfully contended that appellant's injuries did not result from the "operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle" as required under the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (Georgia's "no-fault" statute) and was granted summary judgment. We affirm.
On May 29, 1979 appellant was driving toward Camilla on State Highway 3 when he observed some plum trees along the highway. He parked his pickup truck and proceeded to pick plums. In order to reach plums higher on the tree, he stepped onto the truck bed. At first he stood with one foot in the truck bed and one foot on the side panel; however, being unable to reach the plums desired, he placed both feet on the side panel of the truck bed but slipped and fell to the ground and was injured.
The Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act requires insurers to "pay basic no-fault benefits without regard to fault for economic loss resulting from ... accidental bodily injury sustained ... by the insured ... while occupying any motor vehicle ..." Ga.L.1974, pp. 113, 120 (Code Ann. § 56-3407b). " 'Accidental bodily injury' means bodily injury ... arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle which is accidental ..." Ga.L.1974, pp. 113, 114 (Code Ann. § 56-3402b(c)). " 'Operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle' means operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a vehicle." (Emphasis supplied.) Ga.L.1974, pp. 113, 114 (Code Ann. § 56-3402b(h)). The language in the insurance policy which described the coverage provided by Aetna generally tracked that of the statute as set forth here. The issue raised by this appeal is whether appellant's plum-picking activity amounted to such use of his pickup truck as to bring his injury within the coverage of our no-fault statute.
" " Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 142 Ga.App. 562, 564(1), 236 S.E.2d 550 (1977). The injury in this case resulted neither "from an accident peculiar to the motor vehicle" nor "was intrinsically related to the vehicle itself" so as to make the injury "sufficiently connected to the use and operation of the vehicle to allow recovery under the act." Jones v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 154 Ga.App. 408, 409(1), 268 S.E.2d 444 (1980...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMahon & Sons, Inc.
...burden of proving the facts necessary to the operation of that exclusion. Estrin, 612 S.W.2d at 419; Leverette v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 157 Ga.App. 175, 276 S.E.2d 859 (1981); Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. Stallings, 523 S.W.2d 539, 545 (Mo.Ct.App.1975).6 The doctrine is also re......
-
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Burnett
...Ga.App. 67, 282 S.E.2d 711 (reversing the denial of the insured's motion for judgment on the pleadings); and Leverette v. Aetna Cas. etc. Co., 157 Ga.App. 175, 276 S.E.2d 859 (affirming summary judgment for the insurer); but see Ins. Co. of North America v. Dorris, 161 Ga.App. 46(1)(2), 288......
-
Reynolds v. Transport Ins. Co.
...269, 320 S.E.2d 526 (1984); Clinton v. Nat. Indem. Co., 153 Ga.App. 491(2), 265 S.E.2d 841 (1980). Compare Leverette v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 157 Ga.App. 175, 276 S.E.2d 859 (1981). In my view the trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment, thus denying appe......
-
First Financial Ins. Co. v. Rainey, A90A0137
...conclusion that the appellant's liability for basic benefits was established as a matter of law. Compare Leverette v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 157 Ga.App. 175, 276 S.E.2d 859 (1981) (disallowing 2. The appellant enumerates as error the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment o......