Where the insurance policy provides that "Liability for all damages ..., arising out of bodily injury, ... sustained by one person in any one accident shall not exceed $10,000," this unambiguous and definite maximum of liability is not altered or rendered ambiguous by the insertion of the words "including damages for care and loss of services" as a part of the damages. Accordingly, when the maximum had been paid on account of the injury to the husband, the $2,049.50 claim of the wife because of her loss of consortium is all in excess of the $10,000 maximum covered and paid, and the insurer is not liable therefor.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 13, 1965 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 22, 1965 — REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 7, 1965.

This case is amply reported in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 111 Ga. App. 317 ( 141 S.E.2d 586), and involves merely the question of whether or not the language in an insurance policy is ambiguous. The writ of certiorari was granted because this court felt the Court of Appeals misconstrued the language in the policy. In the written contract the insurance company agrees "to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile," but with a limit of clause in the policy which reads: "Liability for all damages, including damages for care and loss of services, arising out of bodily injury, ... sustained by one person in any one accident shall not exceed $10,000," which was further limited by the sum of $20,000 no matter how many persons were injured in any one accident. The sole question for decision is whether the sentence is ambiguous in that it means bodily injury sustained by any one person, including care and loss of services, in any one accident shall not exceed $10,000, or does it mean all damages recovered by any one person, including care and loss of services, shall not exceed $10,000 as the Court of Appeals found?

A husband and wife were both injured and damaged in an automobile accident which was covered by the insurance contract. The husband sued and recovered $9,000 which was promptly paid by the insurance company. While it was a general verdict and judgment, nevertheless it is clear that this recovery, charging the maximum damages against the insurance company, was $1,000 for loss of consortium of his wife, $900 for damages to his automobile, and $50.50 for medical payments, leaving the definite sum of $7,049.50 which he received for his own personal injuries, whereas he was suing for $52,000 personal injuries to himself. To charge off the entire $9,000 against personal injury would further reduce the liability of the insurance company. The wife sued for $12,200 damages — $5,000 for personal injuries and $7,200 for loss of consortium of her spouse. She received a general verdict and judgment for $10,000. The insurance company claiming that this judgment necessarily included $5,000 for loss of consortium of her husband, and $5,000 personal injury, paid into court only $7,950 claiming that the total judgment caused the husband to sustain more than $10,000 arising out of one accident or $12,049.50, that is $2,049.50 more than they would be required to pay, hence they were obligated to pay for the insured $7,049.50 for the personal injuries of the husband, leaving only $2,950.50 more due on his injury, plus $5,000 for the wife, or $7,950.50 which was paid into court on the judgment.

Hitch, Miller, Beckmann Simpson, R. M. Hitch, Luhr G. C. Beckmann, G. C. Dekle, Jr., Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler Harper, A. Montague Miller, for plaintiff in error.

DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice.

The decisive question here requires consideration of the following: (1) The policy, by unambiguous terms, fixes the maximum liability for injury to one person at $10,000, and this is unaltered by the subsequent provision for coverage when more than one person is injured at a maximum total coverage of $20,000 as it is expressly limited to the maximum provided for one person, including damages for care and loss of services, which is $10,000, and (2) the maximum liabilities stand irrespective of the number of those claiming loss. These provisions of the policy stand unaffected by the rule for construction of ambiguous policies against the insurer. They, being unambiguous, must be given the precise meaning their terms plainly state. Genone v. Citizens Ins. Co. of N. J., 207 Ga. 83 ( 60 S.E.2d 125); Queen Ins. Co. v. Nalley Discount Co., 215 Ga. 837 ( 114 S.E.2d 21). With the foregoing legal principles established, we have only to look to the undisputed facts in this case to discover the obvious error of the Court of Appeals. That court clearly erred in holding that the terms of the policy, to wit: "including damages for care and loss of services" rendered the explicit maximum of liability on account of injury to one person ambiguous in that it could mean the maximum damages recoverable by any one person, that is "damages sustained" instead of "injuries sustained" by any one person. The maximum is unmistakably fixed at $10,000 for injuries sustained by any one person, and this covers every conceivable claim, whether asserted by one or many. Therefore, when the insurer has paid for the damage in the husband's suit of $9,000, giving full credit for his property damage of $900, $50.50 for medical payments, and $1,000 loss of consortium of his wife, there was paid on account of his personal injury only $7,049.50. The policy would then cover only $2,950.50 more for his injury, including any damage for care and loss of his services. The wife, who was also hurt in the automobile wreck, sued for $5,000 for her personal injuries plus $7,200 for loss of consortium and obtained a verdict for $10,000. Thereby, she had a verdict for $5,000 for the injury of her husband. When this is added to what had already been paid on account of his injuries — $7,049.50 paid to him plus $5,000 she claims, totaling $12,049.50 for injuries sustained by her husband, it exceeds the policy coverage of $10,000, is an unwarranted claim for $2,049.50, and the company properly paid $7,950.50 on the $10,000 judgment of the wife.

From the foregoing mathematical facts, it is obvious that the claim here asserted of $2,049.50 by the insured is unwarranted, is not covered by the policy, and the suit therefor based upon this policy stated no cause of action and should have been dismissed on demurrer; and the Court of Appeals' contrary holding is erroneous and reversed.

Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur, except Mobley, J., not participating for providential cause.