Showers v. Allstate Ins. Co., 51225
| Decision Date | 26 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 51225,3,2,Nos. 1,51225,s. 1 |
| Parties | W. A. SHOWERS v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
William A. Showers owned and operated a service station in Macon, Georgia. He purchased a business type insurance policy from Allstate Insurance Company covering certain features of the operation of his business. A customer of Showers allegedly lost a watch which was left in an automobile on his business premises. She made a claim, sued Showers and obtained a judgment. The insurance company refused to pay or defend the action. Showers sued Allstate on the policy for damages in failing to defend him. Allstate moved for judgment on the pleadings which was granted, and the petition was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.
Mullis, Reynolds, Marshall & Horne, Gerald S. Mullis, Macon, for appellant.
Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Wallace Miller, Jr., Macon, for appellee.
The record reveals that the general property form of the policy contains the following language: 'Insurance is afforded with respect to property for which an 'X' is entered opposite the Insuring Agreement(s) applicable to such property . . .' Plaintiff designated that he sought only the insuring agreements for 'Fire, Lightning and Extended Coverage' and 'Vandalism and Malicious Mischief' covering the personal property at his business address. Further down the general property form is the following language: 'Extension-Personal Property of Others: With respect to personal property of others in the care, custody or control of the Insured, insurance is afforded . . . for the legal liability of the Insured.' Based upon this plaintiff urges that the policy affords him coverage whenever his legal liability for the personal property of others is asserted no matter how such liability is alleged to arise. The insurer counters that it has contracted to extend coverage to the personal property of others only if the event befalling such property is covered by the applicable 'Insuring Agreements,' i.e., fire, lightning and extended coverage on vandalism and malicious mischief.
It is quite true and has been stated innumerable times that if a contract of insurance is doubtful that which goes most strongly against the insurer is preferred. Code Ann. § 20-704(5). Yet it is also true that a policy of insurance '. . . which, when construed reasonably and in its entirety, unambiguously and lawfully limits the insurer's liability, cannot be expanded beyond what is fairly within its plain terms.' Ranger Ins. Co. v. Columbus-Muscogee Aviation, 130 Ga.App. 742, 745, 204 S.E.2d 474, 476. Here the policy clearly states coverage is afforded only as to those 'Insuring Agreement(s)' selected by the insured and the language with regard to personal property of others specifically is prefaced by a notation tht such coverage is extension of the insurance selected and not separate coverage. "If the apparent inconsistency is between a clause that is general and broadly inclusive in character and one that is more limited and specific in its coverage, the latter should generally be held to operate as a modification and pro tanto nullification of the former.' 3 Corbin, Contracts, p. 176, § 547.' Central Ga. Elec. Membership Corp. v. Ga. Power Co., 217 Ga. 171, 173, 121 S.E.2d 644, 646.
Plaintiff concedes that the loss of the watch would not be covered by 'Insuring Agreement(s)' selected by him. This being so, construction of the contract compels the conclusion that likewise there was no coverage under the extension provision of the policy. 'In an action to collect on an insurance policy the insured must show that the occurrence was within the type of risk insured against to make a prima facie case.' Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alloway, 134 Ga.App. 660, 661, 215 S.E.2d 506, 507.
Judgment affirmed.
Showers had a policy of insurance with Allstate known as a 'Business Package Policy.' A customer of Showers left her car with Showers for service, and upon her return she claimed a watch which she had left in the car to be missing.
The customer sued Showers, and Showers sought to have Allstate adjust the claim or defend the suit. Allstate refused, contending there was no coverage. Was there any coverage? The policy provided it insured only as to those items in the brackets opposite where an 'X' was placed. 'X' was placed opposite 'fire, lightning and extended coverage.' 'X' was also placed opposite 'vandalism and malicious mischief.' 'XX' was opposite-at bottom of page-' Personal property of others in the care, custody or control of the Insured . . . for the legal liability of the Insured.' A copy of this form follows.
What was the meaning of the coverage sought at the bottom of the page where 'XX' appears opposite 'for the legal liability of the insured'?...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keaten v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.
...expand coverage thereby forcing liability upon the insurer for risks it never intended to assume. See W.A. Showers v. Allstate Ins. Co., 136 Ga.App. 792, 793, 222 S.E.2d 198, 199 (1975). Keaten's counsel on appeal submits that the cases and statutes supporting the aforementioned proposition......
-
Houston v. Lowes of Savannah, Inc.
... ... American Liberty Ins. Co., 225 Ga. 796, 171 S.E.2d 539. We disagree for two ... ...
-
Certain Underwriters v. Rucker Const., A07A0201.
...18. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co. v. Brock, 222 Ga.App. 294, 297(2), 474 S.E.2d 46 (1996). 19. 136 Ga.App. 792, 222 S.E.2d 198 (1975). 20. Id. at 794, 222 S.E.2d 198. 21. (Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 796, 222 S.E.2d 198 (Evans, J., dissenting) 22. Id. at 793, 2......
-
Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
...536, 188 S.E.2d 276; Ranger Ins. Co. v. Columbus-Muscogee Aviation, 130 Ga.App. 742, 745(4), 204 S.E.2d 474; Showers v. Allstate Ins. Co., 136 Ga.App. 792, 793, 222 S.E.2d 198. Judgment MARSHALL and McMURRAY, JJ., concur. ...