St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Mose Gordon Const. Co., 44904
| Decision Date | 19 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 44904,No. 1,44904,1 |
| Citation | 121 Ga.App. 33,172 S.E.2d 459 |
| Parties | ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MOSE GORDON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc. et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Whelchel, Dunlap & Gignilliat, James A. Dunlap, Wright Willingham, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jack S. Davidson, Jefferson, John A. Darsey, Commerce, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Plaintiff brought this action to recover for damage to a drill that was being transported on the truck of the defendant Hix Trucking Co., Inc. The trucking firm's insurance carrier was joined as a party defendant, under Code Ann. § 68-612. Hix cross claimed against the insurance company. The insurer moved for summary judgment which was denied and the trial court certified the denial for direct review.
1. The material facts are admitted by the pleadings of the parties. The case hinges upon the construction of portions of the insurance policy. The insuring agreement in pertinent part states: 'This policy insures the legal liability of the insured as a carrier for loss or damage to goods described herein caused by: b. Collision which in the ordinary course of transporation (meaning thereby the violent and accidental contact of the motor truck with any other automobile, vehicle or object, but excluding loss or damage by coming in contact with a stationary object in backing for loading or unloading purposes, contact with any portion of the roadbed or by striking the rails or ties of street, steam or electric railroad) but free from all claims for loss, damage or expense by wear and tear or ordinary handling due to the mode of transportation.'
The drill while on defendant's truck was damaged whcn it and not the truck struck a railroad underpass. Plaintiff and cross claimant Hix contend that the exclusions following the definition of a collision have created an ambiguity in the insurance contract which must be resolved in their favor. While we have carefully considered this argument and cases cited in support, we fail to find any ambiguity. This issue is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Wolverine Ins. Co. v. Jack Jordan, Inc., 213 Ga. 299, 99 S.E.2d 95, where it was held that under a very similar factual situation and a similar policy provision there was no ambiguity in the policy and no coverage for the loss suffered. Here the definition of a collision is very plain and unambiguous. The collision portion of the contract expressly does not cover damage to the cargo when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Simpsonville Wrecker Service, Inc.
...Universal Insurance Co. v. Robert P. Stapp, Inc., 278 Ala. 209, 177 So.2d 102 (1963); St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Mose Gordon Construction Co., 121 Ga.App. 33, 172 S.E.2d 459 (1970); Wolverine Insurance Co. v. Jack Jordan, Inc., 213 Ga. 299, 99 S.E.2d 95 (1957); Mendelsohn v. Au......
-
Arrow Indus. Carriers, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co. of New Jersey
...(Dist.Ct.1950); Wolverine Ins. Co. v. Jack Jordan, Inc., 213 Ga. 299, 99 S.E.2d 95 (Sup.Ct.1957); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Mose Gordon Constr. Co., 121 Ga.App. 33, 172 S.E.2d 459 (Ct. of App.1970); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Robert P. Stapp, Inc., 278 Ala. 209, 177 So.2d 102 (S......
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Cohen-Walker, Inc.
...discussion that the trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment. See St. Paul Fire etc. Ins. Co. v. Mose Gordon Constr. Co., 121 Ga.App. 33(1), 172 S.E.2d 459 (1970). 2. As to appellees' allegations of waiver, the facts of record affirmatively disclose appellant's c......
-
Adams v. Cox
... ... " Cox v. Travelers Ins. Co., 228 Ga. 498, 186 S.E.2d 748 (1972) ... ...