State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 10 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25916,25916 |
| Citation | 226 Ga. 710,177 S.E.2d 257 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Daniel L. MURPHY, Administrator et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The policy provisions with reference to uninsured motorist coverage which limit it to sums in excess of other insurance are in conflict with the uninsured motorist statute (Ga.L.1963, p. 588, as amended; Code Ann. § 56-407.1), and therefore are void and of no effect.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, C. B. Rogers, John C. Gray, Atlanta, for appellant.
Sanders, Mottola, Haugen, Wood & Goodson, Gus L. Wood, Newman, Charles F. Johnson, Thomasville, for appellees.
The overriding question in this appeal is whether an insured under the uninsured motorist provisions of two separate automobile policies may recover on both policies.
This question arises from an action filed in the Superior Court of Coweta County by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company against Daniel L. Murphy, Michael L. Murphy, Molly Murphy Wagner, J. R. Sumner as administrator of the estate of Winton A. Barnes, Sr., and J. R. Sumner as administrator of the estate of Hazel H. Barnes. The trial court, proceeding by stipulation and without a jury, entered a judgment which would allow the recovery, besides granting other relief.
The facts are those which follow. State Farm issued an automobile insurance policy, hereinafter referred to as 'the first policy,' to E. W. Millians, which was in effect on June 18, 1967, a copy thereof being a part of the record. On that date Mrs. Louise W. Murphy, while a passenger in the Millians automobile, was killed in an accident caused by the negligence of Hazel H. Barnes and Winton, A. Barnes in their operation of an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute commonly known as the Uninsured Motorist Act (Ga.L.1963, p. 588, as amended; Code Ann. § 56-407.1).
State Farm's first policy provided insurance coverage to Mrs. Murphy as a passenger in the Millians automobile for sums which were legally recoverable against the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle.
Mrs. Murphy died a widow and was survived by her children, Daniel L. Murphy, Michael L. Murphy and Molly Murphy Wagner. These children made a claim against State Farm under its uninsured motorist coverage on the Millians vehicle, by the first policy.
Thereafter, State Farm paid these children $5,000 and took from them as instrument which provided in material part that the payment was 'in full settlement and final discharge of all claims under * * * (the first policy) because of bodily injuries known and unknown and which have resulted or may in the future develop, and property damage, sustained by * * * (Mrs. Murphy) by reason of an accident or occurrence arising out of the ownership or operation of an uninsured automobile by Winton A. Barnes * * *'
At the time Mrs. Murphy was involved in the accident while a passenger in the Millians automobile as aforesaid, State Farm also had in effect an automobile insurance policy which named her as an insured but described an automobile other than the one in which she was riding at the time she was killed. This is hereinafter referred to as 'the second policy,' and is also a part of the record.
After State Farm made the $5,000 settlement with Mrs. Murphy's children on the first policy, such children brought an action in the Superior Court of Thomas County against J. R. Sumner as administrator of the estate of Winton A. Barnes (the owner of the uninsured vehicle) and J. R. Sumner as administrator of the estate of Hazel H. Barnes (the operator of the uninsured vehicle) claiming damages for the wrongful death of Mrs. Murphy. This suit was served upon State Farm pursuant to the Uninsured Motorist Act, supra and sought to recover from State Farm an additional sum under the second policy.
State Farm then filed in the Superior Court of Coweta County the instant complaint against Mrs. Murphy's children and the administrator of the owner and the operator of the uninsured vehicle, praying for the following relief: (1) a declaration that State Farm is not liable to Mrs. Murphy's children for any additional sums, and (2) temporary and permanent relief against such children prosecuting the Thomas County action or any other action against State Farm seeking to recover additional sums from the owner and operator of the uninsured vehicle.
To this complaint Mrs. Murphy's children filed an answer and an amendment thereto which admitted the factual allegations of State Farm's complaint but denied that State Farm was entitled to the relief it sought. The amendment sought a reformation of State Farm's first and second policies so as to strike therefrom the 'other insurance' provision, hereinafter set forth.
The case came on for hearing upon the foregoing undisputed facts.
The trial court entered judgment which denied the injunctive relief sought by State Farm against actions seeking additional sums, denied its prayer for a declaration that State Farm is not liable to Mrs. Murphy's children for any additional sums, and denied its request for a declaration that application of the Uninsured Motorist Act, supra, so as to permit recovery of such additional sums was unconstitutional. The judgment also declared that State Farm is liable to Mrs. Murphy's children under the second policy, and granted their prayer that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips
...v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 185 So.2d 689 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1966).Georgia--State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 226 Ga. 710, 177 S.E.2d 257 (Sup.Ct.1970).Hawaii--Walton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile, Ins. Co., 518 P.2d 1399 (Haw.Sup.Ct.1974).Indiana--Patton v. Safeco I......
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode
...387 A.2d 539. See Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 171 Conn. 450-51, 370 A.2d 1006; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 226 Ga. 710, 714, 177 S.E.2d 257 (1970). We have already found that the legislative intention was to put the underinsured motorist coverage on th......
-
Nielsen v. O'Reilly
...229, 372 A.2d 987 (1976); Sellers v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 185 So.2d 689 (Fla.1966); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 226 Ga. 710, 177 S.E.2d 257 (1970); American Ins. Co. v. Takahashi, 59 Haw. 59, 575 P.2d 881 (1978); Kaufmann v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., 76 Ill.2......
-
Bradley v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.
...540 (D.Alaska, 1970); Sellers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 185 So.2d 689 (Fla., 1966); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 226 Ga. 710, 177 S.E.2d 257 (1970); Simpson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 318 F.Supp. 1152 (S.D.Ind., 1970); Patton v. Safeco Ins.......
-
Stacking Un/Underinsured Motorist Coverages
...by the Act. Accordingly, available UM coverages were applied on a pro rata basis. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. v. Murphy , 177 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970). However, Georgia courts rejected the “pro rata” rule for underinsured coverage and may have overruled the Murphy decision s......