Vansant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 54098
Decision Date | 13 June 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 3,No. 54098,54098,3 |
Citation | 142 Ga.App. 684,236 S.E.2d 858 |
Parties | Ida P. VANSANT v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Marion A. Sams, Atlanta, for appellant.
Henning, Chambers & Mabry, Peter K. Kintz, Rex P. Smith, Atlanta, for appellee.
This appeal requires us to construe, for the first time, whether or not retirement income is "income or earnings" as contemplated by the "no-fault" provisions of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (Ga.L.1974, pp. 113, 116, as amended; Code Ann. § 56-3403b).
Ida P. Vansant, the surviving spouse of Robert L. Vansant, who was killed as a result of an automobile-pedestrian accident involving an automobile insured by Allstate, filed an action seeking benefits under the driver's insurance policy for the loss of income or earnings under Code Ann. § 56-3403b(b)(2) and (4). At the time of his death Vansant was a retired federal employee receiving $13,167 a year, or $253.21 a week, from the Civil Service Retirement Fund. Immediately after his death, and as a direct result thereof, Mrs. Vansant began receiving only $111.69 a week, a loss to her of $141.52 a week from the fund.
Code Ann. § 56-3403b requires the owner of every registered vehicle to carry insurance coverage which provides "(b) compensation to insured injured persons, without regard to fault, up to an aggregate minimum limit of $5,000 per insured injured person for: . . .
Allstate compensated Mrs. Vansant for funeral benefits in the amount of $1,530 under the above quoted provisions, but refused her claim for payment of 85 percent of the loss of her husband's income from the remaining $3,470. Citing no authorities, the trial court interpreted the term "loss of income or earnings during disability" to apply only during disability of the decedent and as a result of the fatal incident, and denied recovery.
While we agree with the conclusion of the trial court that "the statutory scheme (of the no-fault provisions) was to provide a means whereby direct payment, independent of common law liability, might be effected to parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reynolds v. Transport Ins. Co.
...422 (1983). Thus, statutory terms have been liberally or broadly construed so as to provide coverage. Vansant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 142 Ga.App. 684, 686, 236 S.E.2d 858 (1977). The purpose of the contract and of the statutes which affect it is to insure people against the risks of harm aris......
-
Vlahos v. Sentry Ins. Co.
...benefits solely on the ground he or she was entitled to wages from his or her employer. Furthermore, Vansant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 142 Ga.App. 684, 236 S.E.2d 858 (1977), does not support the dissent's "entitlement" theory. In that case, Mr. Vansant was killed in an automobile accident. At ......
-
Vlahos v. Sentry Ins. Co., A91A1573
...the accident and that there was no evidence the accrued amounts would ever be paid. Vlahos' argument from Vansant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 142 Ga.App. 684, 236 S.E.2d 858 (1977), that " 'income or earnings' includes delayed earnings such as pensions or annuities under the statutory scheme" doe......
-
Collins v. International Indem. Co.
...as it is perceived to be the intent of the General Assembly to effect coverage under the no-fault law. See Vansant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 142 Ga.App. 684, 686, 236 S.E.2d 858 (1977); Franklin v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., 160 Ga.App. 279, 282, 287 S.E.2d 274 I am authorized to state that Pr......