State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 48639
| Decision Date | 11 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 48639,No. 2,48639,2 |
| Citation | 130 Ga.App. 187,202 S.E.2d 551 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Julius M. TUCKER et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Eugene G. Partain, John A. Sherrill, Atlanta, for appellant.
G. Fred Bostick, Smyrna, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
David Preston Daniel filed suit against Julius M. Tucker, Jr. for personal injuries alleged to have been received as a result of Tucker's backing an automobile into and against Daniel and injuring his leg. On the day following the service of the complaint and summons upon Tucker, his wife telephoned State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and advised it of the suit, and the copy of complaint and summons was promptly delivered to State Farm. State Farm gave written notice to its insured, Tucker, that it would have its attorneys represent him under a 'reservation of rights notice,' and thereafter defensive pleadings were timely filed in his behalf.
State Farm then filed a petition for declaratory judgment, in which it contended that Tucker had failed to give notice of the claim as soon as he learned of it, and had thus violated a provision of the policy which required such notice, and contended that he had thereby forfeited his right to coverage in this case. Discovery was had after which State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Held:
There is a question for the jury remaining in this case, and it was proper to deny State Farm's motion for summary judgment. Tucker testified by deposition that he had no advance knowledge of the injury and contended that the service of suit was the first time he realized that there was a bona fide contention by Daniel that Tucker had backed his car into Daniel. He denied that anybody told him at the scene of the alleged injury that he had run against and injured Daniel. At pages 98-99 of the transcript the following questions and answers appear: 'Q. Let me ask you these few additional questions: Did Mr. Daniel, in so many words, ever blame you or say that this was your fault, 'you hit me' or anything of that nature, at the scene of the accident? 'A. No. 'Q. Or when he came by your home?
At page 88 of the transcript it is shown that Tucker testified that at the time and place of the alleged injury he stopped his car and a man came to the door window and said, 'You...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc.
... ... Aetna Life Ins. Co., 126 Ga.App. 140, 190 S.E.2d 110 (1972); ... 490, 194 S.E.2d 286 (1972); State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v ... Tucker, 130 Ga.App ... ...
-
Downside Risk, Inc. v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
...in favor of the movant. See also First of Ga. Ins. Co. v. Josey, 129 Ga.App. 14, 15-16(3), 198 S.E.2d 381; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 130 Ga.App. 187, 202 S.E.2d 551. Indeed, until the movant has made a prima facie showing by evidence demanding a finding in its favor, there i......
-
McKinnon v. Trivett, 50977
...that there are inconsistencies in the affidavit and depositions of the party opposing such motion.' State Farm etc. Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 130 Ga.App. 187, 188, 202 S.E.2d 551, 553. We will therefore assume for purposes of this appeal that the name of appellant was published by Under Code Ann.......
-
Pugh v. Frank Jackson Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.
...all the evidence must be construed against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion..." State Farm Mut., etc., Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 130 Ga.App. 187, 202 S.E.2d 551 (1973); Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes, 227 Ga. 551, 181 S.E.2d 866 (1971). "To recover for malicious use of proce......