State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, s. 42249
| Decision Date | 27 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,42250,Nos. 42249,s. 42249,1 |
| Citation | 154 S.E.2d 286,115 Ga.App. 193 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Neil L. JILES. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Fannie Sue JILES |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The court erred in sustaining the general demurrers to the petitions for intervention.
2. Georgia R. Co. v. Tice, 124 Ga. 459, 461, 52 S.E. 916. Therefore, under the foregoing rule of law, the court properly sustained the demurrers to the motions to consolidate these cases.
Neil L. Jiles sued William Richard Smith to recover damages which he alleged he sustained as the result of the negligence of Smith in operating his automobile so as to cause it to collide with the automobile of the plaintiff while he was operating it. Mrs. Fannie Sue Jiles, his wife, filed a separate suit against Smith to recover damages for her personal injuries which she alleged she sustained while riding as a passenger in the automobile driven by her husband and as the result of the same collision for which her husband sued. An amendment to each petition was allowed, and each amendment contained an allegation that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is the insurer upon which service should be had under the provisions of Code Ann. § 56-407.1(d) (). That Code section and the Acts from which it is taken relate to the requirement that policies of automobile insurance provide coverage with respect to loss caused by an uninsured motorist. Subsection (d) of that Code section provides in part: '(T) hat in cases where the owner of the vehicle causing the injury or damages is known, a copy of service shall be made upon the insurance company issuing the policy as prescribed by law as though such insurance company were a party defendant.' In the amendment to his petition Mr. Jiles prayed that a second original of his petition issue and be served upon State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The amendment to the petition of Mrs. Jiles contains a similar prayer. Service of a copy of each petition as amended was perfected upon State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Thereafter the insurance company presented to the court in each case a petition to be allowed to intervene. The court ordered each petition for intervention to be filed and issued a rule nisi on each requiring the plaintiff and the defendant to show cause why the petition for intervention should not be granted. Neil L. Jiles filed a general demurrer to the petition for intervention in his case, and Fannie Sue Jiles demurred generally to the petition for intervention in her case.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company also filed in each case a motion seeking an order consolidating the two cases. Plaintiffs respectively generally demurred to those motions. Upon a hearing the trial court sustained the general demurrers to the petitions to intervene and the general demurrers to the motions to consolidate the two cases. The insurance company appealed from the judgments on the plaintiff's demurrers in each case. Since the questions presented by the enumerations of error in each case are identical, the appeals have, for the purpose of this opinion only, been considered and treated together in this court.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Eugene G. Partain, John A. Helms, C.B. Rogers, Atlanta, for appellant.
George & George, William V. George, Forest Park, Frank D. Schaffer, Marietta, for appellee.
1. In the case of State Farm, etc. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 114 Ga.App. 650, 152 S.E.2d 641, the right of an insurance company occupying a position analogous to that of the appellant here to intervene in these cases was decided. There this court said: "Intervenors pro interesse suo are not known in the ordinary common-law suits. Delaney v. Sheehan, 138 Ga. 510, 75 S.E. 632. The general rule at common law is that persons who are not parties to a suit cannot file an intervention therein. Tanner v. American Nat. Bk., 145 Ga. 512, 89 S.E. 515. There are some exceptions to the general rule, as where the intervenor sets up some right that would be directly affected by the judgment. Rust v. Woolbright, 54 Ga. 310. In such a case the interest of the intervenor must be of such a direct and immediate character that he will either gain or lose by the direct effect of the judgment, and must be created by the claim in suit.' Potts v. Wilson, 158 Ga. 316, 319, 123 S.E. 294. Accord, Walker v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., 196 Ga. 361(1), 26 S.E.2d 695. The insurer does have a direct and immediate interest to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana Ins. Co. v. Noble, 569A84
...48 Ill.App.2d 251, 198 N.E.2d 194 (1964); Matthews v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 F.Supp. 459 (E.D.Va.1961), State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 115 Ga.App. 193, 154 S.E.2d 286 (1967); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Glover, 113 Ga.App. 815, 149 S.E.2d 852 (1966); Heisner v. Jones, 184 Neb......
-
Fisher v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...Denney, 555 So.2d 137 (Ala.1989); Sutch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 672 A.2d 17 (Del.Super.1995); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 115 Ga.App. 193, 154 S.E.2d 286 (1967); Andeen v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 70 Ill.App.2d 357, 217 N.E.2d 814 (1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1036, 8......
-
Smith v. Crump
...Ga.App. 411, 188 S.E.2d 171 (1972); Home Indem. Co. v. Thomas, 122 Ga.App. 641, 178 S.E.2d 297 (1970); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 115 Ga.App. 193, 154 S.E.2d 286 (1967). Mandatory motor vehicle liability insurance, either as no fault or under OCGA § 33-34-5, has been in effect......
-
Keel v. MFA Ins. Co.
...265 N.E.2d 419 (Ind.App.1970); State v. Craig, 364 S.W.2d 343, 95 A.L.R.2d 1321 (Mo.App.1963); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jiles, 115 Ga.App. 193, 154 S.E.2d 286 (1967); Continental Ins. Co. v. Smith, 115 Ga.App. 667, 155 S.E.2d 713 (1967); Jiles v. Smith, 118 Ga.App. 569,......