State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 08 September 1970
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 45442,45442,3
• Citation: 178 S.E.2d 215,122 Ga.App. 584
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Inez SNYDER et al

Page 215

178 S.E.2d 215

122 Ga.App. 584

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Inez SNYDER et al.

No. 45442.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Sept. 8, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1970.

Syllabus by the Court

Under an automobile liability policy excluding from its coverage members of the family residing in the same household as the insured, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the insured's mother-in-law, although living under the same roof, was a resident of his household where there is evidence which would support a finding that she maintained a separate domestic establishment.

In an action for a declaratory judgment, plaintiff insurer appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Defendants are all the parties in a pending negligence action which the insurer is defending under a reservation of rights.

The insured is George Harned. The injured party is his mother-in-law, Mrs. Snyder, who was riding as a guest in the Harned automobile driven by her daughter Peggy. The issue on this appeal is whether, as a matter of law, Mrs. Snyder is a 'member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured' so as to exclude coverage for bodily injury liability under the terms of the policy.

The deposition and affidavits of the defendants show: At the time of the accident, Mrs. Snyder and the Harneds lived under the same roof, a one-family house owned by George. The ground floor contained a living room, dining room, den, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. The second floor had two rooms, furnished and used exclusively by Mrs. Snyder as a sitting room and as a bedroom. The Harneds similarly furnished and used exclusively the ground floor rooms except for the kitchen and bathroom which were shared. Mrs. Snyder carried her towel and toilet articles to and from the bathroom when she used it. Each of the women had her own stove and utensils in the kitchen and used them exclusively in food preparation. There was only one refrigerator but separate shelves were allocated. The one washing machine was also used in separate shifts. Mrs. Snyder was employed full time and went out to work every day. She paid $15 a week to the Harneds as 'rent.' She bought her own groceries and household supplies, prepared her own meals and ate them alone in the kitchen on a completely different schedule from the Harneds. She spent the evenings in her own sitting room watching her own television set.

Greer & Murray, Malcolm S. Murray, Kenneth C. Pollock, Atlanta, for appellant.

Caldwell, Bridges & Page, Richard T. Bridges, Donald A. Page, Harry A. Crawley, Thomaston, for appellees.

HALL, Presiding Judge.

State Farm cites four Georgia cases in which the exclusion in question was found applicable. Morris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 88 Ga.App. 844, 78 S.E.2d 354; Varnadoe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 112 Ga.App. 366, 145 S.E.2d 104; Teems v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 113 Ga.App. 53, 147 S.E.2d 20; Keene v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 114 Ga.App. 625, 152 S.E.2d 577. In each case there was some close blood relationship, such as we have here, and some other factor tending to show a degree of independence from the family (e.g., employed adult children who paid board at home; husband who was sleeping in his attached office rather than the marital bed). Nevertheless, each of these various family relationships operated within a 'domestic establishment under single management,' the definition of 'household' as applied to this exclusion. 8 Blashfield's-Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, p. 70 (3d Ed.) § 318.4; Keene v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra.

The drafters of the clause had some actuarial purpose in mind. Their choice of words was not casual. The clause does not apply, for example, to a relative, however close, living elsewhere; nor to a resident of the same household who is not a 'member of the family' (a term including not only a blood relative, but also one who enjoys all the prerogatives of family life). What then, is the purpose of the exclusion? 'To safeguard the insurer against the natural...