Adana Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. Bankers Insurance Service Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adana Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. Bankers Insurance Service Corp.

366 S.E.2d 408, 186 Ga. App. 76, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 102

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 25, 1988

Docket75741

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 366 S.E.2d 408 (Adana Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. Bankers Insurance Service Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adana Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. Bankers Insurance Service Corp., 366 S.E.2d 408, 186 Ga. App. 76, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that his contract of group insurance had been breached by appellee-defendants. Appellees answered and subsequently moved for summary judgment, based upon appellant’s asserted failure to initiate his suit within the contractual limitation period purportedly contained in the policy. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to appellees.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, appellees relied only upon the language of the “Certificate of Insurance” that had been issued to appellant. Under its own terms, this certificate was “issued solely for the information of the named Assured and follows the terms and conditions of the coverage provided such Assured under [the Policy]. The rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of said Policy. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Appellees never introduced a copy of the policy itself and the policy is not otherwise of record. “The law is very clear that ‘(a) contract of group insurance is made up of the master group policy and the certificate, which must be construed together. . . .’ [Cits.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Morrison Assur. Co., Inc. v. Armstrong, 152 Ga. App. 885, 886-887 (264 SE2d 320) (1980). See also Investor’s Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Norsworthy, 160 Ga. App. 340 (287 SE2d 66) (1981). Thus, appellees, as movants for summary judgment, relied upon the written provision of a contract of insurance but produced evidence of only a part of that contract. It follows that the trial court erred in granting appel[77]*77lees’ motion for summary judgment. Construing the evidence most strongly against appellee, there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to the controlling provisions of the contract. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). There is no evidence that the policy contained a limitation provision for bringing suit against appellees or, if it did what its terms were. The very portion of the contract that was offered into evidence explicitly provides that it does not govern the rights and obligations of the parties, but that those rights and obligations are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy which does not appear of record.

Decided February 25, 1988. George R. Dean, for appellant. William H. Hughes, Jr., for appellees.

Judgment reversed.

Banke, P. J., and Benham, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carley, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that his contract of group insurance had been breached by appellee-defendants. Appellees answered and subsequently moved for summary judgment, based upon appellant’s asserted failure to initiate his suit within the contractual limitation period purportedly contained in the policy. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to appellees.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, appellees relied only upon the language of the “Certificate of Insurance” that had been issued to appellant. Under its own terms, this certificate was “issued solely for the information of the named Assured and follows the terms and conditions of the coverage provided such Assured under [the Policy]. The rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of said Policy. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Appellees never introduced a copy of the policy itself and the policy is not otherwise of record. “The law is very clear that ‘(a) contract of group insurance is made up of the master group policy and the certificate, which must be construed together. . . .’ [Cits.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Morrison Assur. Co., Inc. v. Armstrong, 152 Ga. App. 885, 886-887 (264 SE2d 320) (1980). See also Investor’s Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Norsworthy, 160 Ga. App. 340 (287 SE2d 66) (1981). Thus, appellees, as movants for summary judgment, relied upon the written provision of a contract of insurance but produced evidence of only a part of that contract. It follows that the trial court erred in granting appel[77]*77lees’ motion for summary judgment. Construing the evidence most strongly against appellee, there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to the controlling provisions of the contract. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). There is no evidence that the policy contained a limitation provision for bringing suit against appellees or, if it did what its terms were. The very portion of the contract that was offered into evidence explicitly provides that it does not govern the rights and obligations of the parties, but that those rights and obligations are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy which does not appear of record.

Decided February 25, 1988. George R. Dean, for appellant. William H. Hughes, Jr., for appellees.

Judgment reversed.

Banke, P. J., and Benham, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 S.E.2d 408, 186 Ga. App. 76, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adana-mortgage-bankers-inc-v-bankers-insurance-service-corp-gactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack