Hughes v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hughes v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

245 S.E.2d 466, 146 Ga. App. 117, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2266

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1978

Docket55620

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 245 S.E.2d 466 (Hughes v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL 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

Hughes v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 245 S.E.2d 466, 146 Ga. App. 117, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2266 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

*117 Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs obtained a judgment for $20,000 against a third-party tortfeasor whose vehicle was insured under a policy with a $10,000 liability limit. Plaintiffs obtained this amount from the third party’s carrier. Then they brought this suit against their own insurer for recovery of the $10,000 balance due on the judgment under their uninsured motorist coverage. Plaintiffs had two separate auto policies with defendant with $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage on each policy. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant and plaintiffs appeal. Held:

In Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Austin, 143 Ga. App. 309 (238 SE2d 253), under the same fact situation, we held that the tortfeasor was not uninsured within the meaning of our statutes (Code Ann. § 56-407.1 (a) and (b)) so as to authorize the stacking of plaintiffs’ separate policies. Accordingly, Austin controls and we must affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Birdsong, JJ., concur. *118 Young, Young, EUerbee & Clyatt, F. Thomas Young, for appellee.

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

*117 Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs obtained a judgment for $20,000 against a third-party tortfeasor whose vehicle was insured under a policy with a $10,000 liability limit. Plaintiffs obtained this amount from the third party’s carrier. Then they brought this suit against their own insurer for recovery of the $10,000 balance due on the judgment under their uninsured motorist coverage. Plaintiffs had two separate auto policies with defendant with $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage on each policy. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant and plaintiffs appeal. Held:

In Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Austin, 143 Ga. App. 309 (238 SE2d 253), under the same fact situation, we held that the tortfeasor was not uninsured within the meaning of our statutes (Code Ann. § 56-407.1 (a) and (b)) so as to authorize the stacking of plaintiffs’ separate policies. Accordingly, Austin controls and we must affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Birdsong, JJ., concur. *118 Young, Young, EUerbee & Clyatt, F. Thomas Young, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.E.2d 466, 146 Ga. App. 117, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-cotton-states-mutual-insurance-company-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack