From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hale v. Southern Guaranty Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 13, 1967
153 S.E.2d 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)

Opinion

42192.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 8, 1966.

DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1967.

Action on insurance policy. Floyd Superior Court. Before Judge Scoggin.

Marson G. Dunaway, Jr., for appellant.

Matthews, Maddox, Walton Smith, W. E. Davidson, Jr., for appellee.


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 1965, 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 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.

Judgment affirmed. Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 8, 1966 — DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1967.


Summaries of

Hale v. Southern Guaranty Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 13, 1967
153 S.E.2d 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
Case details for

Hale v. Southern Guaranty Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:HALE v. SOUTHERN GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jan 13, 1967

Citations

153 S.E.2d 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
153 S.E.2d 574

Citing Cases

State Farm Mutual c. Co. v. Black

e Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 113 Ga. App. 53 ( 147 S.E.2d 20); Varnadoe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 112…

Mattox v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co.

He affirmed that this car was one of the five cars furnished to him and his division for regular use in his…