Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Lyon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Lyon

87 S.E. 761, 17 Ga. App. 441, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 999

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 7, 1916

Docket6382

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 761 (Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Lyon) 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

Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Lyon, 87 S.E. 761, 17 Ga. App. 441, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 999 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. Though a fire-insurance policy covering an automobile provides that a change of ownership of the property, without the written consent of the insurance company, renders the policy void, and that agents of the company can not waive any provisions of the policy unless such waiver is written upon the policy or attached thereto, yet where the local agent of the company knew, before he issued the policy to A, that the automobile had been sold by A to B, the company was bound by such knowledge, and was estopped from setting up, as a defense to a suit upon the policy, the non-compliance of the plaintiff with these provisions of the policy. Mechanics Ins. Co. v. Mutual Building Asso., 98 Ga. 262 (1), 266 (25 S. E. 457); Phenix Insurance Co. v. Searles, 100 Ga. 97 (27 S. E. 779); Johnson v. Ætna Ins. Co. 123 Ga. 404 (1), 410 (51 S. E. 339, 107 Am. St. R. 92); Springfield Fire Ins. Co. v. Price, 132 Ga. 687 (64 S. E. 1074), and cases therein cited; Rome Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 11 Ga. App. 539 (4), 544 (75 S. E. 894); Germania Insurance Co. v. Barringer, 43 Okla. 279 (142 Pac. 1026).

2. There was conflict in the evidence as to whether the automobile was sold on April 29, 1911 (the date the policy sued on was issued), or on May 11, 1911, but that issue was settled by the jury.

3. There was also a dispute as to whether the insurance company, at the time it issued the policy, was fully informed of the sale of the automobile by Lyon & Kelly (the plaintiffs) to one Rogers; but the verdict settled that question also.

[442]*442Decided January 7, 1916.

Action on insurance policy; from city court of Richmond county —Judge W. F.,Eve. January 9, 1915.

King & Spalding, O. R. Kve, Holden, Shackelford & Meadow, for plaintiff in error. C. H. & R. S. Cohen, W. K. Miller, contra.

4. Under the facts as disclosed by the record, we can not hold that the verdict rendered was excessive.

5. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and no error requiring a reversal appears in the charge or in the rulings during the trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. Though a fire-insurance policy covering an automobile provides that a change of ownership of the property, without the written consent of the insurance company, renders the policy void, and that agents of the company can not waive any provisions of the policy unless such waiver is written upon the policy or attached thereto, yet where the local agent of the company knew, before he issued the policy to A, that the automobile had been sold by A to B, the company was bound by such knowledge, and was estopped from setting up, as a defense to a suit upon the policy, the non-compliance of the plaintiff with these provisions of the policy. Mechanics Ins. Co. v. Mutual Building Asso., 98 Ga. 262 (1), 266 (25 S. E. 457); Phenix Insurance Co. v. Searles, 100 Ga. 97 (27 S. E. 779); Johnson v. Ætna Ins. Co. 123 Ga. 404 (1), 410 (51 S. E. 339, 107 Am. St. R. 92); Springfield Fire Ins. Co. v. Price, 132 Ga. 687 (64 S. E. 1074), and cases therein cited; Rome Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 11 Ga. App. 539 (4), 544 (75 S. E. 894); Germania Insurance Co. v. Barringer, 43 Okla. 279 (142 Pac. 1026).

2. There was conflict in the evidence as to whether the automobile was sold on April 29, 1911 (the date the policy sued on was issued), or on May 11, 1911, but that issue was settled by the jury.

3. There was also a dispute as to whether the insurance company, at the time it issued the policy, was fully informed of the sale of the automobile by Lyon & Kelly (the plaintiffs) to one Rogers; but the verdict settled that question also.

[442]*442Decided January 7, 1916.

Action on insurance policy; from city court of Richmond county —Judge W. F.,Eve. January 9, 1915.

King & Spalding, O. R. Kve, Holden, Shackelford & Meadow, for plaintiff in error. C. H. & R. S. Cohen, W. K. Miller, contra.

4. Under the facts as disclosed by the record, we can not hold that the verdict rendered was excessive.

5. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and no error requiring a reversal appears in the charge or in the rulings during the trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 761, 17 Ga. App. 441, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-union-assurance-co-v-lyon-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack