Brock v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brock v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance

230 S.E.2d 37, 140 Ga. App. 110, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1364

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 28, 1976

Docket52740

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 S.E.2d 37 (Brock v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance) 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

Brock v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance, 230 S.E.2d 37, 140 Ga. App. 110, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1364 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Stolz, Judge.

In this action by an employee against his employer’s farmowners insurance carrier, seeking indemnity as an insured under the policy for injuries caused by the employer-policyholder’s alleged negligence, the trial judge did not err in sustaining the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of its failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (which motion is authorized by Code Ann. § § 81A-112 (b) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 622; as amended), 81A-112 (h)(2), and 81A-319 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 679)). The pleadings showed that the defendant had paid the plaintiff $500, the maximum liability for injury to one person under terms of the policy substantially the same as those held to be unambiguous in State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 355 (144 SE2d 723).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Clark, J., concur.

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

Stolz, Judge.

In this action by an employee against his employer’s farmowners insurance carrier, seeking indemnity as an insured under the policy for injuries caused by the employer-policyholder’s alleged negligence, the trial judge did not err in sustaining the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of its failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (which motion is authorized by Code Ann. § § 81A-112 (b) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 622; as amended), 81A-112 (h)(2), and 81A-319 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 679)). The pleadings showed that the defendant had paid the plaintiff $500, the maximum liability for injury to one person under terms of the policy substantially the same as those held to be unambiguous in State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 355 (144 SE2d 723).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Clark, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 S.E.2d 37, 140 Ga. App. 110, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-pennsylvania-national-mutual-casualty-insurance-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack