State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 22960
| Decision Date | 22 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 22960,22960 |
| Citation | 144 S.E.2d 723,221 Ga. 355 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Mrs. J. L. HODGES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the insurance policy provides that 'Liability for all damages * * *, arising out of bodily injury, * * * sustained by one person in any one accident shall not exceed $10,000,' this unambiguous and definite maximum of liability is not altered or rendered ambiguous by the insertion of the words 'including damages for care and loss of services' as a part of the damages. Accordingly, when the maximum had been paid on account of the injury to the husband, the $2,049.50 claim of the wife because of her loss of consortium is all in excess of the $10,000 maximum covered and paid, and the insurer is not liable therefor.
Hitch, Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, Luhr G. C. Beckmann, Savannah, G. C. Dekle, Jr., Millen, Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, A. Montague Miller, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas M. Odom, Millen, for defendant in error.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Edward E. Dorsey, C. B. Rogers, Bryan, Carter, Ansley & Smith, W. Colquitt Carter, M. D. McLendon, Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, A. Paul Cadenhead, Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, Robert L. Pennington, Freeman & Hawkins, Joe C. Freeman, Jr., Max F. Goldstein, Wayne H. Shortridge, Altanta, Divine & Busbee, George D. Busbee, Albany, for parties at interest not parties to record.
This case is amply reported in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 111 Ga.App. 317, 141 S.E.2d 586, and involves merely the question of whether or not the language in an insurance policy is ambiguous. The writ of certiorari was granted because this court felt the Court of Appeals misconstrued the language in the policy. In the written contract the insurance company agrees 'to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall became legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile,' but with a limit of liability clause in the policy which reads: 'Liability for all damages, including damages for care and loss of services, arising out of bodily injury, * * * sustained by one person in any one accident shall not exceed $10,000,' which was further limited by the sum of $20,000 no matter how many persons were injured in any one accident. The sole question for decision is whether the sentence is ambiguous in that it means bodily injury sustained by any one person, including loss of care and service, in any one accident shall not exceed $10,000, or does it mean all damages recovered by any one person, including care and loss of services, shall not exceed $10,000 as the Court of Appeals found?
A husband and wife were both injured and damaged in an automobile accident which was covered by the insurance contract. The husband sued and recovered $9,000 which was promptly paid by the insurance company. While it was a general verdict and judgment, nevertheless it is clear that this recovery, charging the maximum damages against the insurance company, was $1,000 for loss of consortium of his wife, $900 for damages to his automobile, and $50.50 for medical payments, leaving the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Indem. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.
...Cas. Co. v. Hart, 153 Fla. 840, 16 So.2d 118 (1943) (services, medical expenses, and consortium); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 355, 144 S.E.2d 723 (1965) (consortium); Gass v. Carducci, 52 Ill.App.2d 394, 202 N.E.2d 73, modified, 52 Ill.App.2d 402a, 203 N.E.2d 289 (1964......
-
Izzo v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co.
...Cal.Rptr. 644 (1981); United Services Auto Assn. v. Warner, 64 Cal.App.3d 957, 135 Cal.Rptr. 34 (1976); State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 355, 144 S.E.2d 723 (1965); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Cornelsen, 272 Md. 48, 321 A.2d 149 (1974); New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Bisson, 122......
-
Lepic By and Through Lepic v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co.
...any one person" to modify language earlier in the limitation provision, such as "all damages." See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 355, 357, 144 S.E.2d 723, 724-25 (1965) (wife's loss of consortium claim limited); Dunn v. Travelers Ins. Co., 6 Mass.App.Ct. 910, 910-11, 378......
-
Faber v. Roelofs
...Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 108 Ga.App. 56, 131 S.E.2d 803 (1963), does not survive State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 355, 144 S.E.2d 723 (1965), reversing 111 Ga.App. 317, 141 S.E.2d 586 (1965), which had relied on Phillips.11 The district court stated: 'In......
-
Insurance - Stephen L. Cotter, Stephen M. Schatz, and Brad S. Wolff
...personal injury claim or for her loss of consortium claim . . . ." Id. (emphasis added)). 116. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 355, 357, 144 S.E.2d 723, 725 (1965). 117. O.C.G.A. Sec. 33-7-11(b)(1)(D)(ii). 118. O.C.G.A. Sec. 33-7-11(a)(1) (2000 & Supp. 2008). 119. Id. 120.......