Still v. Great Central Ins. Co., 45426
| Decision Date | 25 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45426,No. 3,45426,3 |
| Citation | 176 S.E.2d 268,122 Ga.App. 99 |
| Parties | B. K. STILL et al. v. GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
G. Hughel Harrison, James W. Garner, Lawrenceville, for appellants.
Dunaway, Shelfer, Haas & Newberry, William S. Shelfer, Sr. William S. Shelfer, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Plaintiffs in a suit to collect on an insurance policy appeal from a summary judgment for the defendant.
The undisputed facts show: Plaintiffs are proprietors of a gas-station-grocery business. On the day of the occurrence in question they had approximately $890.00 cash in a money bag under a counter. During a period of about 30 minutes, while the plaintiff then on duty was waiting on customers at another counter, the bag disappeared. There were several other people in the store, but no one, including that plaintiff, saw the actual removal of the bag. Plaintiffs had an insurance policy with defendant called a 'Storekeepers Burglary and Robbery Policy'. Defendant denied coverage.
The policy covers losses in several categories, but it does not cover simple theft from the shop during business hours. Plaintiffs contend this occurrence was a robbery within the meaning of the policy definition 'the taking of insured property (3) by any other overt felonious act committed in his presence and of which he was actually cognizant. * * * ' This clearly means cognizance of the taking at the time it is in process, not when the loss is discovered as plaintiffs contend. It was a robbery neither within the policy definitions nor within the ordinary meaning of the word.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alloway
.... . .' Sun Ins. Office v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 113 Ga.App. 782, 784-85, 149 S.E.2d 753, 755. See e.g. Still v. Great Central Ins. Co., 122 Ga.App. 99, 176 S.E.2d 268. In the farmowners policy sub judice the insurer has narrowed the scope of its liability by specifically delineating ......
-
Vam Check Cashing Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co.
...the act nor its felonious character, and the case is therefore unhelpful here. Much the same is true of Still v. Great Central Insurance Co., 122 Ga.App. 99, 176 S.E.2d 268 (1970), in which no one saw a bag of cash being removed from underneath the counter, and Ashcraft v. United States Fid......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Shields
...car in order to distract the custodian momentarily and then absconded with the money left on the seat. In Still v. Great Central Insurance Company, 122 Ga.App. 99, 176 S.E.2d 268, a similar policy provision was held to mean: 'Cognizance of the taking at the time it is in process, not when t......