Court Opinion

ID: 9561557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:11:55.865862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:56.046024
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant contends in a second motion for rehearing that the result reached here is in direct conflict with the case of Hotel Storage, Inc. v. Fesler, 120 Ga. App. 672 (172 SE2d 174). We fail to see any such conflict as contended. The holding in this case turns on the determination from the facts that the car involved was “in use by another while employed or otherwise engaged in the automobile business,” thereby excluding it from coverage under the policy. Even if it be conceded that the employee was at all times a dual servant of both McKay and Park Chrysler-Plymouth, the exclusion in the policy would still be applicable.

Motion denied.