CopyCited 46 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 13, 1987 | 256 Ga. 713
...the incident occurred as Johnson was unloading freight in the trailer. The exclusion applies "for bodily injury sustained while in, upon, entering or alighting from the portion normally designed for cargo of any automobile, regardless of use." OCGA §
33-34-7 (a) (1) provides for the payment of no-fault benefits for accidental bodily injury sustained while occupying any motor vehicle....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 25, 1988 | 258 Ga. 15
...The exclusion in this case, like the one in Southeastern Fidelity *16 Ins. Co. v. Johnson,
256 Ga. 713 (352 SE2d 760) (1987), excludes from coverage job related activities performed while "Occupying" or "Operating" a "Motor vehicle" as these terms are defined in OCGA §
33-34-2. Nevertheless, OCGA §
33-34-7 (a) (1) provides for the payment of no-fault benefits for accidental bodily injury sustained while occupying any motor vehicle....
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 6, 1984 | 253 Ga. 269
...Thus, under certain circumstances a person may be an "insured," as discussed above, without necessarily being entitled to no-fault benefits. [2] An insurer is liable for payment of no-fault benefits when the injury complained of falls into one of the following three categories (OCGA §
33-34-7 (a)): "(1) Accidental bodily injury sustained within the United States of America ....
....; and (3) Accidental bodily injury sustained by any other person as a result of being struck by the owner's motor vehicle while a pedestrian in this state." This provision, entitled "Payment of no-fault benefits," might also be denominated as the "insured events" provision. Category 3 of OCGA §
33-34-7 (a), supra, is not applicable here because the deceased, although a pedestrian as defined by the act, was not "struck" by the motor vehicle....
...App. 3 (230 SE2d 70) (1976), an uninsured motorist as opposed to a no-fault case. Our uninsured motorist law, OCGA §
33-7-11, does not contain an occupancy requirement, nor should it. The Nelson court did not apply the occupancy requirement of OCGA §
33-34-7 (a) (1) (2) and hence Division 2 of that opinion is disapproved and will not be followed....
...Our review of the cases prompts us to make an observation for the benefit of the bar and bench of Georgia. Too little attention has been paid to the "insured events" provision of our no-fault law, which provides when payment of no-fault benefits shall be due. OCGA §
33-34-7 (a), supra....
...We therefore answer the first question certified (which may be an affirmative answer) as follows: Georgia's Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act requires and restricts payment of no-fault insurance benefits in and to those instances specified in OCGA §
33-34-7 as the terms therein used are defined in the no-fault act, OCGA §
33-34-2. As heretofore shown, although the deceased in this case suffered grievous injuries presumably compensable under our workers' compensation law, his death is not compensable under our no-fault law because his was not an insured event under OCGA §
33-34-7 (a), supra....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 4, 1986 | 256 Ga. 493
...t extends no protection to motorcycles or their occupants. The act covers motor vehicles which are defined as vehicles having more than three load-bearing wheels. OCGA §
33-34-2 (6). The statute does, however, afford protection to pedestrians, OCGA §
33-34-7 (a) (3); and pedestrians are defined as any person not occupying a motor vehicle or motorcycle or any other motor driven vehicle designed primarily for operation upon the public streets, roads and highways or not in or upon a vehicle operated on stationary rails or tracks or not in or upon any aircraft....
...This presents a question of fact for a jury and summary judgment is inappropriate. International Indemnity next argues that even if Collins were a pedestrian rather than an occupant of the motorcycle it was entitled to summary judgment in that Lovett's stationary car did not "strike" Collins within the meaning of OCGA §
33-34-7 (a) (3)....
...The court did not deal with the liability of the insurer of the stationary or propelled vehicle. We find now that where one vehicle is propelled by another vehicle into a third vehicle or pedestrian, both the propelling vehicle and the propelled vehicle have "struck" the third vehicle or pedestrian within the meaning of OCGA §
33-34-7....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 13, 1989 | 259 Ga. 474
...by the insured and spouse and children if residing in the insured's household and the relatives of either if residents of the insured's household while occupying any motor vehicle ... (2) Accidental bodily injury sustained by any other person while occupying the owner's motor vehicle. ... [OCGA §
33-34-7 (a)]....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 30, 1990 | 387 S.E.2d 570
...The insurer of the automobile filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court, and affirmed on appeal. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burnetti,
192 Ga. App. 593 (385 SE2d 446) (1989). We granted certiorari.
1. OCGA §
33-34-7 (a) (3) provides that “no-fault” benefits must be paid for economic loss resulting from:
Accidental bodily injury sustained by any other person as a result of being struck by the owner’s motor vehicle while a pedestrian in this state.
2....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 10, 1991 | 403 S.E.2d 802
...ed to recover basic no-fault benefits, or to stack or cumulate no-fault benefits under that policy as authorized by OCGA §
33-34-4 (c), for economic loss resulting from accidental bodily injury while occupying any motor vehicle, as provided by OCGA §
33-34-7 (a) (1).
2....
...own.
Smith v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., supra, involved an exclusion when the insured was involved in job related activities while “occupying” or “operating” a “motor vehicle” as defined by OCGA §
33-34-2. We said that since OCGA §
33-34-7 (a) (1) provides no-fault benefits for accidental injury while occupying any motor vehicle, the exclusion could not stand.
The Court of Appeals is apparently concerned that these two cases interpret §
33-34-7 (a) (1) differently....
