Legal Opinion

Cotton States Mutual Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 7, 1968No. 43705PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bell, Presiding Judge.

The omnibus clause used in the policy before us is substantially similar to the one dealt with in Strickland v. Ga. Cas. &c. Co., 224 Ga. 487 (162 SE2d 421). The Supreme Court, interpreting the term “actual use” as contained in the omnibus clause, held that those words referred to the purpose for which permission was given and not to the operation of the vehicle. Pp. 489-492. As to the distinction between “using” and “operating” an automobile, see Anno. 160 ALR 1195, 1204.

In several cases in which this court considered the issue whether a person other than the original…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Strickland v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1968
  2. Drake v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
  3. Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
  4. Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. StrozierCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hemphill v. Home Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  2. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
  3. Elliott v. LeavittCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  4. Allstate Insurance v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
  5. Blayton v. Ford Motor Credit CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API