Auld v. Spratlin, Harrington & Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Auld v. Spratlin, Harrington & Company

229 S.E.2d 103, 139 Ga. App. 613, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1907

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 22, 1976

Docket52579

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 229 S.E.2d 103 (Auld v. Spratlin, Harrington & Company) 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

Auld v. Spratlin, Harrington & Company, 229 S.E.2d 103, 139 Ga. App. 613, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1907 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

Auld sued defendant insurance agents alleging that they negligently failed to renew an insurance policy contrary to the agreement between them. The trial court, sitting without a jury, gave judgment for defendants, reciting as one of the findings of fact that "There was no evidence to show any contract or binding obligation on the part of either defendant to renew insurance coverages on plaintiffs separate properties when the preceding insurance policies expired.” The conclusions of law were that plaintiff s own negligence was the proximate cause of his loss; that the evidence was insufficient to show that any of the defendants were negligent; that the omission to renew the insurance was due to a nonnegligent error; and that there was no contract between plaintiff and defendants obligating defendants to renew the coverage, either as plaintiffs agents or otherwise. Auld appeals, taking no issue with any finding of fact as being unsupported by the evidence, or with any conclusion of law as being unsupported by any fact found, but urging that the judgment was erroneous "as a matter of law.” Held:

Although Auld attempts to demonstrate that this is one of those cases where, "waiving the contract,” an action may be maintained in tort for failure of defendants to use ordinary care in the performance of their contractual duties, the discussion is academic since the court initially has found no negligence and no contract. The findings not having been demonstrated to be "wholly unsupported or clearly erroneous,” they are "binding on appeal.” Spivey v. [614]*614Mayson, 124 Ga. App. 775, 777 (186 SE2d 154) (1971).

Submitted September 13, 1976 Decided September 22, 1976. Moulton, Carriere, Cavan & Maloof, J. Wayne Moulton, for appellant. Hugh E. Wright, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Been, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Webb, Judge.

Auld sued defendant insurance agents alleging that they negligently failed to renew an insurance policy contrary to the agreement between them. The trial court, sitting without a jury, gave judgment for defendants, reciting as one of the findings of fact that "There was no evidence to show any contract or binding obligation on the part of either defendant to renew insurance coverages on plaintiffs separate properties when the preceding insurance policies expired.” The conclusions of law were that plaintiff s own negligence was the proximate cause of his loss; that the evidence was insufficient to show that any of the defendants were negligent; that the omission to renew the insurance was due to a nonnegligent error; and that there was no contract between plaintiff and defendants obligating defendants to renew the coverage, either as plaintiffs agents or otherwise. Auld appeals, taking no issue with any finding of fact as being unsupported by the evidence, or with any conclusion of law as being unsupported by any fact found, but urging that the judgment was erroneous "as a matter of law.” Held:

Although Auld attempts to demonstrate that this is one of those cases where, "waiving the contract,” an action may be maintained in tort for failure of defendants to use ordinary care in the performance of their contractual duties, the discussion is academic since the court initially has found no negligence and no contract. The findings not having been demonstrated to be "wholly unsupported or clearly erroneous,” they are "binding on appeal.” Spivey v. [614]*614Mayson, 124 Ga. App. 775, 777 (186 SE2d 154) (1971).

Submitted September 13, 1976 Decided September 22, 1976. Moulton, Carriere, Cavan & Maloof, J. Wayne Moulton, for appellant. Hugh E. Wright, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Been, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.E.2d 103, 139 Ga. App. 613, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auld-v-spratlin-harrington-company-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack