Aetna Insurance v. Government Employees Insurance
Opinion
The question in this case is whether the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (Sections 46-750. 31 (2) and 46-750.32, Supplement to the 1962 Code of Laws) requires that automobile liability insurance policies issued in this State provide coverage for a minor, unmarried son of an insured and resident of her household, while driving a vehicle not listed in the policy. The lower court held that such coverage was not required by the statutes.
[308]*308The judgment under appeal is affirmed under the decision in Crenshaw v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, S. C., 191 S. E. (2d) 718, filed this date.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
191 S.E.2d 720 (Aetna Insurance v. Government Employees Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.