7 S.E.2d 407 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1940
Lead Opinion
The court erred in granting a new trial. The verdict rendered was demanded.
We are of the opinion that a verdict for the plaintiff was demanded. Under the well-known rules for the construction of insurance contracts where the meaning is doubtful, that construction will be adopted which is most strongly against the insurer and in favor of the insured. The fact that the injury might have been inflicted by something projecting from the truck renders the definition of the word "truck" necessary. The dictates of common sense require that it be defined to include not only the truck but its load as well. It would be unreasonable to exclude, by interpretation, a risk more remote and unlikely than those expressly covered by the policy. This conception is not militated against by the contention that the premium for the policy was extremely low. This view has been expressed in two foreign cases involving the defendant and its policies. Manessv. Life Casualty Co.,
Judgment reversed. Stephens, P. J., concurs.
Dissenting Opinion
Under the evidence and the provisions of the insurance policy, I am of the opinion that the verdict for the plaintiff was not demanded. Consequently the judge did not err in granting a new trial.