Hale v. SOUTHERN GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hale v. SOUTHERN GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY

153 S.E.2d 574, 115 Ga. App. 29, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 990

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1967

Docket42192

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 153 S.E.2d 574 (Hale v. SOUTHERN GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY) 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

Hale v. SOUTHERN GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 153 S.E.2d 574, 115 Ga. App. 29, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 990 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

In this action by a named insured against her insurer to recover under the medical payments provisions of her automobile insurance policy, which excluded coverage of non-owned automobiles “furnished for the regular use” of the insured, the evidence showed that the automobile in question belonged to plaintiff’s sister-in-law, who had given plaintiff and her husband its keys in May of 1966, making it available for an indefinite time for their unrestricted use and that, although their actual use of the automobile was rather infrequent, they nevertheless enjoyed continuous, uninterrupted possession of it with the privilege and opportunity of its use at such times and for such purposes as they wished up *30 through the date of the collision, August 25, 1965. Under the holding in Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Falls, 114 Ga. App. 812, the exclusionary clause was applicable to the automobile in question; therefore, the court did not err in its judgment sustaining the defendant insurer's motion for a summary judgment.

Frankum and 'Pannell, JJ., concur. Argued September 8, 1966 Decided January 13, 1967. Mar son C. Dunaway, Jr., for appellant. Matthews, Maddox, Walton & Smith, W. E. Davidson, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

In this action by a named insured against her insurer to recover under the medical payments provisions of her automobile insurance policy, which excluded coverage of non-owned automobiles “furnished for the regular use” of the insured, the evidence showed that the automobile in question belonged to plaintiff’s sister-in-law, who had given plaintiff and her husband its keys in May of 1966, making it available for an indefinite time for their unrestricted use and that, although their actual use of the automobile was rather infrequent, they nevertheless enjoyed continuous, uninterrupted possession of it with the privilege and opportunity of its use at such times and for such purposes as they wished up *30 through the date of the collision, August 25, 1965. Under the holding in Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Falls, 114 Ga. App. 812, the exclusionary clause was applicable to the automobile in question; therefore, the court did not err in its judgment sustaining the defendant insurer's motion for a summary judgment.

Frankum and 'Pannell, JJ., concur. Argued September 8, 1966 Decided January 13, 1967. Mar son C. Dunaway, Jr., for appellant. Matthews, Maddox, Walton & Smith, W. E. Davidson, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E.2d 574, 115 Ga. App. 29, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-southern-guaranty-insurance-company-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack