State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Lietz
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Presiding Judge.
State Farm contends that under the terms of the policy, in order for the mother’s car to be a temporary substitute two things must be shown: first, that the daughter’s car was withdrawn from normal use, and second, that the withdrawal was because of its breakdown. It further contends that neither of these conditions was met, and as a matter of law, the mother’s vehicle could not be considered a temporary substitute.
There appears to be no Georgia case construing the phrase "withdrawn from normal use.” Other jurisdictions have decided the question variously. "Withdrawal of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hemphill v. Home Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- Lewis v. BradleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Erickson v. GenisotMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
- Fullilove v. US Casualty Company of New YorkSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1960
- Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. WestSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1959
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Diggs v. Southern InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- Safeway Insurance v. HolmesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
- Teter v. CorleyCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1978
- Strain Poultry Farms, Inc. v. American Southern InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Atkinson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.