Aetna Insurance v. Apollo Sleep Products, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Aetna Insurance v. Apollo Sleep Products, Inc.

296 S.E.2d 781, 164 Ga. App. 404, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2814

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 29, 1982

Docket65097

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 296 S.E.2d 781 (Aetna Insurance v. Apollo Sleep Products, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Insurance v. Apollo Sleep Products, Inc., 296 S.E.2d 781, 164 Ga. App. 404, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2814 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Been, Presiding Judge.

The primary issue in this case appears to be whether the use and operation of a hot air balloon fitted with a passenger gondola, actually in flight although only 15 feet off the ground when plaintiff fell, is an aircraft coming within the exclusionary language of an insurance policy. This type of balloon would seem to be somewhere mid-between a “hang glider” on the one hand and an “airplane” on the other. We believe the holding in Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Long, 148 Ga. App. 216 (251 SE2d 133) (1978) substantially controls this case under consideration. The trial court erred in denying appellant’s summary judgment and in granting summary judgment for appellee.

Judgment reversed with direction to enter an order in favor of appellant consistent with the holding in this case.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Been, Presiding Judge.

The primary issue in this case appears to be whether the use and operation of a hot air balloon fitted with a passenger gondola, actually in flight although only 15 feet off the ground when plaintiff fell, is an aircraft coming within the exclusionary language of an insurance policy. This type of balloon would seem to be somewhere mid-between a “hang glider” on the one hand and an “airplane” on the other. We believe the holding in Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Long, 148 Ga. App. 216 (251 SE2d 133) (1978) substantially controls this case under consideration. The trial court erred in denying appellant’s summary judgment and in granting summary judgment for appellee.

Judgment reversed with direction to enter an order in favor of appellant consistent with the holding in this case.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 S.E.2d 781, 164 Ga. App. 404, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-insurance-v-apollo-sleep-products-inc-gactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack