Legal Opinion
National-Ben Franklin Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Prather
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided March 4, 1964No. 40512PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Russell, Judge.
The only previous discussion in this State of the exclusionary clause “furnished for the regular use of” in automobile liability policies is to be found in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bates, 107 Ga. App. 449 (130 SE2d 514) where Pacific Auto Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 56 Cal. App. 2d 597 (132 P2d 846) is cited as authority for the proposition that the word “furnished for” must be read in connection with “regular use” and that both are operative parts of the exclusion. As there stated: “Assuming that the use of such a car may be regular without being exclusive, there are other…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sperling v. Great American Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1960
- Pacific Automobile Insurance v. LewisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. BatesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Byrd v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietySupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Anderson v. BeasleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cotton States Mutual Insurance v. FallsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Bringle v. Economy Fire & Casualty CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1969
- Holt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1986
- Johnson v. Home Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966
- Mattox v. Cotton States Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.