Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Osting

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Osting

525 S.E.2d 380, 240 Ga. App. 833, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 4334, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1499

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1999

DocketA99A1827

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 525 S.E.2d 380 (Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Osting) 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

Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Osting, 525 S.E.2d 380, 240 Ga. App. 833, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 4334, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1499 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Phipps, Judge.

Osting and Morrison entered into a bailor-bailee agreement for storage of Morrison’s goods at Osting’s residence. While there, the goods were destroyed by fire. Osting’s homeowner’s insurance carrier, Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, sued for a declaratory judgment that its policy does not cover claims against Osting for loss of the property. The trial court held otherwise.

The insurer appealed in Ga. Farm &c. Ins. Co. v. Osting.1 Because the coverage issue turns on the question of whether Osting and Morrison intended their contract to directly relate to the insured location, and because the trial court decided the case on another ground, this court reversed and remanded for reconsideration. This court held that the testimony of Morrison and Osting presented conflicting evidence on the question to be decided.

On remand, the trial court, without hearing additional evidence, ruled that the parties intended their contract to relate directly to the insured premises.

The insurer again appeals, arguing that (1) Osting’s and Morrison’s testimony was not admissible on the question of contract interpretation, and (2) there is no evidence to support the trial court’s ruling. In the prior appeal, these issues were decided adversely to the insurer through rulings which are binding in this appeal under the law of the case rule.²

Judgment affirmed.

Johnson, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur. John T. Croley, Jr., for Georgia Farm Bureau. Jason A. Craig, for Osting. John E. Morrison, pro se.

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

Phipps, Judge.

Osting and Morrison entered into a bailor-bailee agreement for storage of Morrison’s goods at Osting’s residence. While there, the goods were destroyed by fire. Osting’s homeowner’s insurance carrier, Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, sued for a declaratory judgment that its policy does not cover claims against Osting for loss of the property. The trial court held otherwise.

The insurer appealed in Ga. Farm &c. Ins. Co. v. Osting.1 Because the coverage issue turns on the question of whether Osting and Morrison intended their contract to directly relate to the insured location, and because the trial court decided the case on another ground, this court reversed and remanded for reconsideration. This court held that the testimony of Morrison and Osting presented conflicting evidence on the question to be decided.

On remand, the trial court, without hearing additional evidence, ruled that the parties intended their contract to relate directly to the insured premises.

The insurer again appeals, arguing that (1) Osting’s and Morrison’s testimony was not admissible on the question of contract interpretation, and (2) there is no evidence to support the trial court’s ruling. In the prior appeal, these issues were decided adversely to the insurer through rulings which are binding in this appeal under the law of the case rule.²

Judgment affirmed.

Johnson, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur. John T. Croley, Jr., for Georgia Farm Bureau. Jason A. Craig, for Osting. John E. Morrison, pro se.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 S.E.2d 380, 240 Ga. App. 833, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 4334, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-farm-bureau-mutual-insurance-v-osting-gactapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack