Legal Opinion · Dissent

Reynolds v. Transport Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 12, 1986No. 71112Published

1DissentPope, Judge

The dispute here centers upon the interpretation to be given a certain provision of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act, OCGA § 33-34-1 et seq. The provision in question is OCGA § 33-34-2 (8) which defines “occupying” as “to be in or upon a motor vehicle or engaged in the immediate act of entering into or alighting from the motor vehicle.”

As is pertinent here, no-fault benefits are recoverable for accidental bodily injury sustained by a person other than the named insured, such as appellant here, “while occupying the owner’s motor vehicle if the accident occurs within the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Clinton v. National Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
  2. Leverette v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
  3. Ferguson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1963
  4. Kelley v. Integon Indemnity Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1984
  5. Jones v. Continental InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983

3 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