Brown v. Nationwide Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. Nationwide Insurance Company

306 S.E.2d 62, 167 Ga. App. 84, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2401

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 22, 1983

Docket66277

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 306 S.E.2d 62 (Brown v. Nationwide Insurance 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

Brown v. Nationwide Insurance Company, 306 S.E.2d 62, 167 Ga. App. 84, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2401 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

“It is well settled that a contractual provision in a policy of insurance that ‘no suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with, and unless commenced within twelve months next after inception of the loss’ is a valid contractual provision and is reasonable... And in the absence of facts to show a waiver by or estoppel against the insurer, the provision is binding upon the insured, and the insurer is entitled to rely upon it.” (Citations omitted.) Aiken v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 106 Ga. App. 220 (126 SE2d 630), and cases therein cited. Accord, General Ins. Co. of America v. Lee Chocolate Co., 97 Ga. App. 588 (103 SE2d 632); Walton v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ga. App. 348, 349 (2) (136 SE2d 168); Lee v. Safeco Ins. Co., 144 Ga. App. 519, 520 (1) (241 *85 SE2d 627).

Decided June 22, 1983. William S. Dominy, for appellant. William A. Dinges, Malcolm S. Murray, for appellees.

Waiver as above described may be accomplished by conduct on the part of the insurer “which would reasonably lead the insured to believe that a strict compliance with the limitation provision would not be insisted upon.” General Ins. Co. of America v. Lee Chocolate Co., 97 Ga. App. 588, supra. The evidence in the case sub judice showed that after a theft loss the insurer required more information from the insured, that the insured was deposed by counsel for the insurance company and that after denial of the insured’s claim, he filed a complaint with the Georgia Insurance Commissioner. The proof adduced failed to establish that the insurance company caused its insured to act to his detriment by not filing suit within 12 months of the loss as required by the terms of the policy. See OCGA § 33-24-40 (Code Ann. § 56-2428). That being true and since it was established that suit was brought more than 12 months after the loss and there being no evidence to sustain either waiver or estoppel on the insurer’s part, the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant insurance company.

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

“It is well settled that a contractual provision in a policy of insurance that ‘no suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with, and unless commenced within twelve months next after inception of the loss’ is a valid contractual provision and is reasonable... And in the absence of facts to show a waiver by or estoppel against the insurer, the provision is binding upon the insured, and the insurer is entitled to rely upon it.” (Citations omitted.) Aiken v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 106 Ga. App. 220 (126 SE2d 630), and cases therein cited. Accord, General Ins. Co. of America v. Lee Chocolate Co., 97 Ga. App. 588 (103 SE2d 632); Walton v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 109 Ga. App. 348, 349 (2) (136 SE2d 168); Lee v. Safeco Ins. Co., 144 Ga. App. 519, 520 (1) (241 *85 SE2d 627).

Decided June 22, 1983. William S. Dominy, for appellant. William A. Dinges, Malcolm S. Murray, for appellees.

Waiver as above described may be accomplished by conduct on the part of the insurer “which would reasonably lead the insured to believe that a strict compliance with the limitation provision would not be insisted upon.” General Ins. Co. of America v. Lee Chocolate Co., 97 Ga. App. 588, supra. The evidence in the case sub judice showed that after a theft loss the insurer required more information from the insured, that the insured was deposed by counsel for the insurance company and that after denial of the insured’s claim, he filed a complaint with the Georgia Insurance Commissioner. The proof adduced failed to establish that the insurance company caused its insured to act to his detriment by not filing suit within 12 months of the loss as required by the terms of the policy. See OCGA § 33-24-40 (Code Ann. § 56-2428). That being true and since it was established that suit was brought more than 12 months after the loss and there being no evidence to sustain either waiver or estoppel on the insurer’s part, the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant insurance company.

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 S.E.2d 62, 167 Ga. App. 84, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-nationwide-insurance-company-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack