Martin v. Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company

4 Citing cases

  1. State Farm Co. v. Goodman

    259 Ga. App. 62 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 17 times
    Determining that a question of fact existed as to whether the decedent's aunt, who was also the named insured, was maintaining a household with the decedent's nuclear family at the time of injury even though the aunt "was living elsewhere but maintaining a close connection with the premises"

    As with the resident relative exclusion, we find that questions of fact exist on whether the rental exclusion applies and whether the rental was on an occasional basis. The facts of this case differ from those in Martin v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 210 Ga. App. 32, 33 ( 435 S.E.2d 258) (1993), on which State Farm relies. In Martin, the premises had been rented to others and had been rented continuously for several years.

  2. Rainey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

    458 S.E.2d 411 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 8 times
    Finding the father demonstrated an intent to remove himself from his daughter's household when he moved out of her home and into his own apartment, as corroborated by cancelled rent checks, information in his tax returns which identified his daughter as not living with him, and his admission that he "lived" in the apartment despite spending several nights per week with his daughter to be close to work

    See Davenport, supra. Because State Farm conclusively established that Rainey did not live with his daughter at the time of the accident, the trial court did not err in granting the insurer's motion for summary judgment. See generally Martin v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 210 Ga. App. 32 ( 435 S.E.2d 258) (1993). Judgment affirmed. Birdsong, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

  3. Horace Mann Ins. v. Drury

    213 Ga. App. 321 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    Holding exclusion in homeowner's policy for claims arising from insured's "violation `of any criminal law or statute'" applied to accidental injury resulting from unlawful possession of fireworks, and did not violate public policy

    [Cit.]' Burnette v. Ga. Life c. Ins. Co., 190 Ga. App. 485 (1) ( 379 S.E.2d 188) (1989)." Martin v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 210 Ga. App. 32, 33 ( 435 S.E.2d 258) (1993). Here, the exclusion in this homeowner's policy of coverage of acts of an insured which constitute a violation "of any criminal law or statute" can only reasonably be read to exclude injuries caused by illegal possession of firecrackers.

  4. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Moss

    338 Ga. App. 684 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)

    State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wonnell , 178 Ill.App.3d 823, 826, 128 Ill.Dec. 43, 533 N.E.2d 1131 (1989). See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bauman , 313 Ga.App. at 774, 723 S.E.2d 1. ("Occasional" means "[o]ccurring from time to time, ... [n]ot habitual; infrequent.") (punctuation omitted); Martin v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. , 210 Ga.App. 32, 33, 435 S.E.2d 258 (1993) (Continuously renting the premises to a series of tenants is contrary to the definition of an occasional rental.); Gardner v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am. , 2011 WL 2600604, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69848(III)(B) (N.D.N.Y., June 29, 2011) ("[T]he phrase ‘the rental ... of an insured location ... on an occasional basis' ... refers to episodic, non-systematic rentals.") (citation omitted).