Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America

102 S.E.2d 61, 96 Ga. App. 869, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 932

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1958

Docket36995

StatusPublished

This text of 102 S.E.2d 61 (Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America) 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

Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. General Insurance Co. of America, 102 S.E.2d 61, 96 Ga. App. 869, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 932 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, Presiding Judge.

In support of the contention for reversal, counsel for the petitioner cite Hodges v. Ocean Acci[874]*874dent &c. Corp., 66 Ga. App. 431 (18 S. E. 2d 28). In that case the policy provided that any person was insured who used the car for “pleasure and business” or “commercial” with the permission of the insured. The court defined the difference between “permission” and “first instance permission.” The evidence there showed that the car was being used for a purpose not authorized by the insured and therefore the insurance company was not liable. Drake v. General Accident, Fire &c. Assurance Corp., 88 Ga. App. 408 (77 S. E. 2d 71), cited by counsel for the petitioner, showed implied permission on the part of the owner for the driver to use the car. The holding in that case is not contrary to what we are holding in the instant case.

The judge of the trial court did not err in the ruling.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Gardner, Presiding Judge.

In support of the contention for reversal, counsel for the petitioner cite Hodges v. Ocean Acci[874]*874dent &c. Corp., 66 Ga. App. 431 (18 S. E. 2d 28). In that case the policy provided that any person was insured who used the car for “pleasure and business” or “commercial” with the permission of the insured. The court defined the difference between “permission” and “first instance permission.” The evidence there showed that the car was being used for a purpose not authorized by the insured and therefore the insurance company was not liable. Drake v. General Accident, Fire &c. Assurance Corp., 88 Ga. App. 408 (77 S. E. 2d 71), cited by counsel for the petitioner, showed implied permission on the part of the owner for the driver to use the car. The holding in that case is not contrary to what we are holding in the instant case.

The judge of the trial court did not err in the ruling.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E.2d 61, 96 Ga. App. 869, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-casualty-surety-co-v-general-insurance-co-of-america-gactapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack