Reserve Ins. Co. v. Dearhart
| Decision Date | 18 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 22272,22272 |
| Citation | 135 S.E.2d 378,219 Ga. 699 |
| Parties | RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Richard G. DEARHART. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Automatic coverage for the newly acquired automobile did not exist under the facts here.
Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, Edward S. White, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Wheeler & Crecelius, Charles D. Wheeler, Decatur, for defendant in error.
For consideration here is the automatic coverage provision of an automobile liability insurance policy, reciting in material part as follows: 'Newly acquired automobile--An automobile, ownership of which is acquired by the named insured * * * if (i) it replaces an automobile owned * * * and covered by this policy, or, the company insures all automobiles owned by the named insured * * * on the date of its delivery * * *.'
Reserve Insurance Company, which issued the policy, filed suit for declaratory judgment in the Superior Court of DeKalb County against Thomas Fred Rauschenberg, its named insured, and Richard G. Dearhart, who was then suing Rauschenberg. A declaration was sought as to whether this policy covered the automobile which allegedly caused Dearhart's injuries.
Upon the trial, the evidence showed, without dispute, that when this policy was issued the only automobile described therein was a Ford, then and at all times pertinent to this case, owned not by Rauschenberg but by his father; that subsequent to the issuance of the policy Rauschenberg purchased a Chevrolet automobile, which was involved in the collision with Dearhart; and that prior to the purchase of the Chevrolet Rauschenberg owned no automobile.
The trial court held that there was no coverage of the Chevrolet under the above quoted automatic coverage provision for newly acquired automobiles, and therefore no obligation upon Reserve to defend or pay any judgment as to Dearhart's suit.
The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that coverage did not exist by reason of the language as to replacement of an insured automobile but holding that it did exist because of the language 'if * * * the company insures all automobiles owned by the named insured * * *.' Dearhart v. Reserve Insurance Company, 108 Ga.App. 347, 132 S.E.2d 809.
We granted certiorari.
The only question raised by the application for certiorari, and therefore the only question for our consideration, is whether the Court of Appeals misinterpreted the policy language quoted above. it is our view...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ditmyer v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 43155
...Co., 104 Ga.App. 139, 121 S.E.2d 270; Dearhart v. Reserve Ins. Co., 108 Ga.App. 347, 132 S.E.2d 809, reversed on other grounds in 219 Ga. 699, 135 S.E.2d 378; Mock v. Darby, 109 Ga.App. 620, 137 S.E.2d Although it is true that it is not alleged in the petition for declaratory judgment that ......
-
LaSalle Nat. Ins. Co. v. Popham
...Co., 104 Ga.App. 139, 121 S.E.2d 270; Dearhart v. Reserve Ins. Co., 108 Ga.App. 347, 132 S.E.2d 809, reversed on other grounds in 219 Ga. 699, 135 S.E.2d 378; Mock v. Darby, 109 Ga.App. 620, 137 S.E.2d 81; Ditmyer v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 117 Ga.App. 512, 160 S.E.2d 844; Stubbs v. Stat......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hillhouse
...Co., 104 Ga.App. 139, 121 S.E.2d 270; Dearhart v. Reserve Ins. Co., 108 Ga.App. 347, 132 S.E.2d 809, reversed on other grounds in 219 Ga. 699, 135 S.E.2d 378; Mock v. Darby, 109 Ga.App. 620, 137 S.E.2d 81; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peek, 112 Ga.App. 260, 145 S.E.2d 50; Ditmyer v. American......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peek
...New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 104 Ga.App. 139, 121 S.E.2d 270; Dearhart v. Reserve Ins. Co., 108 Ga.App. 347, 132 S.E.2d 809, rev. 219 Ga. 699, 135 S.E.2d 378, upon another point, and The trial court erred in sustaining defendants' general demurrers. Judgment reversed. FRANKUM and HALL, JJ.,......