State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sewell, 23793
| Decision Date | 05 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 23793,23793 |
| Citation | 223 Ga. 31,153 S.E.2d 432 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Alvin Ray SEWELL, by Next Friend. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where an insurance policy limits liability to 'entire and irrecoverable loss of sight,' it was error to charge that loss of sight for all practical purposes was covered thereby. And where the evidence shows that the insured could count fingers at a distance of one or two feet, tell the color of a shirt at such a distance, and read a printed word, a verdict against the insured was demanded.
This case is fully reported in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Sewell, 114 Ga.App. 331, 151 S.E.2d 231; and Georgia Life, etc., Ins. Co. v. Sewell, 113 Ga.App. 443, 148 S.E.2d 447; wherein the same plaintiff, the same accident, and a similar policy provision and the same issues were considered by the Court of Appeals. The writ of certiorari was granted in the State Farm case, which the Court of Appeals held it was controlled by the Georgia Life case to review and consider the contentions of the applicant that the court misconstrued the provision of its policy, 'Loss-means * * * with regard to eyes, entire and irrecoverable loss of sight * * *.' Our consideration of the case involves only this question.
Heard & Leverett, E. Freeman Leverett, Elberton, for appellant.
McClure, Ramsay & Struble, Robert B. Struble, Toccoa, Joseph Skelton, Hartwell, for appellee.
The controlling question is whether or not the charge that loss of sight for all practical purposes conforms to the policy provision 'entire' loss of sight. We are not aided by Cato v. Aentna Life Ins. Co., 164 Ga. 392, 138 S.E. 787; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 194 Ga. 138, 20 S.E.2d 761; and Mustual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Barron, 198 Ga. 1, 30 S.E.2d 879, which dealt with 'total disability.' In those cases the kind of work was involved as well as the lack of mathematical certainty, while here, the degree of loss of sight is fixed by the invariable word 'entire.' That word 'entire' embraces all and leaves nothing. This means that if there exists enough sight to count fingers, see that a shirt is blue, and see objects though indistinctly, as the evidence shows the insured could do, his sight is not entirely lost. Although it would be humane and kind to this unfortunate boy to let him have the amount of the policy to feebly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parris & Son, Inc. v. Campbell, s. 47512
...coverage, have no choice but to accept without alteration all such terms and limit liability thereto.' State Farm Mut. &c. Ins. Co. v. Sewell, 223 Ga. 31, 32, 153 S.E.2d 432, 433. We do not deal with a binder here, but with a complete policy that was issued and delivered many months before ......
-
Arnold v. Life Ins. Co. of North America
...practical purposes," is the appropriate standard under an insurance policy referring to "entire" loss. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sewell, 223 Ga. 31, 153 S.E.2d 432, 433 (1967). Sewell held that the "word 'entire' embraces all and leaves nothing.... [I]f there exists enough sight t......
-
Cotton v. Provident Life and Cas. Ins. Co.
...Third International Dictionary at 758 (1981). Indeed some courts have accepted this narrow reading. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Sewell, 223 Ga. 31, 153 S.E.2d 432 (1967), the Supreme Court of Georgia was in the same situation as this Court is now, namely interpreting the mea......
-
Strickland v. Gulf Life Ins. Co.
...the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, relied on our case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Sewell, 223 Ga. 31, 153 S.E.2d 432 (1967), which it had reluctantly followed earlier in Travelers Ins. Co. v. Pratt, 130 Ga.App. 331, 203 S.E.2d 302 ......