Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peek
| Decision Date | 16 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 41317,No. 3,41317,3 |
| Citation | 112 Ga.App. 260,145 S.E.2d 50 |
| Parties | NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Don PEEK et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where an insurer denies coverage under a particular policy and seeks to relieve itself of its obligation to defend a pending suit against an insured because of circumstances pleaded which cast doubt on the coverage of the policy as applied to those circumstances, there is such an immediacy of choice imposed upon it as to justify an adjudication by declaratory judgment.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment and naming Don Peek and Alton Wilson as defendants. The petition discloses the following facts: Plaintiff issued to Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. an automobile liability insurance policy for the policy period April 16, 1961, to April 16, 1962. A copy of the policy is incorporated in the petition. According to its provisions plaintiff agreed 'to pay on behalf of The Insured all sums which The Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile [Coverage E].' The policy defined 'insured' as follows: 'With respect to the insurance for Bodily Injury Liability and for Property Damage Liability the unqualified word 'Insured' includes the Named Insured and also includes any person while using an owned automobile or a hired automobile and any person or organization legally responsible for the use thereof, provided the actual use of the automobile is by the Named Insured or with his permission, and any executive officer of the Named Insured with respect to the use of a non-owned automobile.'
On February 24, 1962 each of the defendants owned a tractor-trailer truck which was 'under lease to and in the service of' Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. On that day the two vehicles were involved in a collision with each other, and Peek's vehicle was damaged. At that time Wilson's truck was being operated by Wilson's employee. Peek afterwards instituted suit against defendant Wilson, seeking to recover $9,500 for the damages to Peek's truck.
Both defendants contend that defendant Wilson is a person insured under the policy issued by plaintiff to Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. and that coverage is afforded for the alleged occurrence. Petitioner contends that indemnity against Wilson's liability for the property damage to Peek's truck is excluded by the following policy provision: 'This policy does not apply: * * * (f) under Coverage E, to injury to or destruction of property owned or transported by the Insured, or property rented to or in charge of the Insured other than a residence or private garage injured or destroyed by a private passenger automobile covered by this policy.'
Wilson demanded that plaintiff assume defense of Peek's suit against Wilson. Plaintiff denied that it was obligated to defend the suit, but filed a defense after entering into a waiver agreement with Wilson expressly reserving its right to contend that Wilson was not entitled under the policy to indemnity for liability for the alleged property damage.
The petition prayed that the court declare the rights and liabilities of the parties and decree that plaintiff has no obligation to defendants or either of them under the policy.
To the petition each defendant filed numerous general and special demurrers. After a hearing the court sustained general demurrers 1 and 2 of each defendant, which were based in different language on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action, and dismissed plaintiff's petition. No ruling was made on the other general and special demurrers.
Plaintiff excepts to the judgment of the trial court sustaining defendants' demurrers and dismissing the petition.
Smith, Ringel, Martin & Lowe, H. A. Stephens, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ditmyer v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 43155
...there is such an immediacy of choice imposed upon it as to justify an adjudication by declaratory judgment.' Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Peek, 112 Ga.App. 260, 145 S.E.2d 50. Accord: Mensinger v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 202 Ga. 258, 42 S.E.2d 628; Georgia Cas. & Surety Co. v. Turner, 86 G......
-
LaSalle Nat. Ins. Co. v. Popham
...do not agree. The rule as to when an insurer may properly proceed for declaratory judgment is clearly stated in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peek, 112 Ga.App. 260, 145 S.E.2d 50: 'Where an insurer denies coverage under a particular policy and seeks to relieve itself of its obligation to defe......
-
Richmond v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
...is such an immediacy of choice imposed upon it as to justify an adjudication by declaratory judgment.' Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peek, 112 Ga.App. 260, 263, 145 S.E.2d 50, 52. See St. Paul Fire Etc., Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 216 Ga. 437, 117 S.E.2d 459; LaSalle Nat. Ins. Co. v. Popham, 125 Ga......
-
Capital Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., Inc., 72757
...... there is such immediacy of choice imposed upon it as to justify an adjudication by declaratory judgment.' Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peek, 112 Ga.App. 260, 263 (145 SE2d 50) ... A proper and safe course of action for an insurer in this position is to enter upon a defense under a reserv......