Hemphill v. Home Insurance Company

2 Citing cases

  1. Vanminos v. Merkley

    48 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)   Cited 20 times

    The record indicates that respondents knew of and in fact suggested that Fred, Jr. substitute his car for Hazel's when Hazel's car would not start. Substantial authority in other jurisdictions supports the holding in Hemphill v Home Ins. Co. ( 121 Ga. App. 458; 121 Ga. App. 323) that the permission of the owner provision relates only to the purpose for which permission was given and not to the identity of the operator of the automobile (cf. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Johnston, 9 Cal.3d 270). Finally, appellant urges that by virtue of section V (subd [d], par [3]) of the policy New Hampshire cannot be held liable if the accident occurred while the automobile was being used in a business or occupation of such named insured or spouse unless the automobile was being operated by the named insured, spouse, chauffeur or domestic servant.

  2. Tingle v. Arnold, Cate & Allen

    199 S.E.2d 260 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 28 times

    Under these circumstances we hold the rules of this court have been satisfied and we should consider appellant's rehearing motion. The two cases cited by appellees' attorney are not applicable here. Hemphill v. Home Ins. Co., 121 Ga. App. 458 ( 174 S.E.2d 251) ruled a failure to meet our ten days filing requirements was fatal. Ogletree Hatchery v. John W. Eshelman Sons, 222 Ga. 634 ( 151 S.E.2d 710) dealt with a Supreme Court requirement on certiorari application.