Federated Mutual Insurance v. Pate

Supreme Court of Georgia

Federated Mutual Insurance v. Pate

329 S.E.2d 494, 254 Ga. 361, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 710

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1985

Docket41901

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 329 S.E.2d 494 (Federated Mutual Insurance v. Pate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Federated Mutual Insurance v. Pate, 329 S.E.2d 494, 254 Ga. 361, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 710 (Ga. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Weltner, Justice.

Certiorari was granted to review Division 2 of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Pate v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 173 Ga. App. 163 (325 SE2d 831) (1984), which held that a question of fact existed as to whether an insurance company had contracted to provide optional no-fault coverage to a policyholder, notwithstanding the inapplicability of Flewellen v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 250 Ga. 709 (300 SE2d 673) (1983). A recitation of fact appears in the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

We agree with the dissenting Court of Appeals judges that an essential element of the purported contract (to pay $26,464.24 in return for a $2,476 premium) is missing as a matter of law — absent the compulsion of Flewellen. A reading of the entire correspondence between the parties establishes that the parties intended to contract for this coverage only if Flewellen required the payment of $26,464.24. Flewellen is inapplicable, and the Court of Appeals should have affirmed the grant of the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment. Peachtree &c. Investors v. Reed Drug Co., 251 Ga. 692 (308 SE2d 825) (1983); Indian Trail Village v. Smith, 152 Ga. App. 301 (262 SE2d 581) (1979).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Weltner, Justice.

Certiorari was granted to review Division 2 of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Pate v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 173 Ga. App. 163 (325 SE2d 831) (1984), which held that a question of fact existed as to whether an insurance company had contracted to provide optional no-fault coverage to a policyholder, notwithstanding the inapplicability of Flewellen v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 250 Ga. 709 (300 SE2d 673) (1983). A recitation of fact appears in the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

We agree with the dissenting Court of Appeals judges that an essential element of the purported contract (to pay $26,464.24 in return for a $2,476 premium) is missing as a matter of law — absent the compulsion of Flewellen. A reading of the entire correspondence between the parties establishes that the parties intended to contract for this coverage only if Flewellen required the payment of $26,464.24. Flewellen is inapplicable, and the Court of Appeals should have affirmed the grant of the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment. Peachtree &c. Investors v. Reed Drug Co., 251 Ga. 692 (308 SE2d 825) (1983); Indian Trail Village v. Smith, 152 Ga. App. 301 (262 SE2d 581) (1979).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 S.E.2d 494, 254 Ga. 361, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federated-mutual-insurance-v-pate-ga-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack