Glassman v. Phoenix Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Glassman v. Phoenix Insurance Co.

160 S.E.2d 264, 117 Ga. App. 171, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1018

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 31, 1968

Docket43330

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 160 S.E.2d 264 (Glassman v. Phoenix Insurance Co.) 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

Glassman v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 160 S.E.2d 264, 117 Ga. App. 171, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1018 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

The agent argues in support of his demurrer that the petition shows the boat was not a risk located in the vicinity of Atlanta and therefore that he was not authorized to insure it on behalf of the insurer. The alleged location of the boat does not show as a matter of law, however, that the binder was not a contract enforceable against the insurer. The meaning of the term “Atlanta and vicinity” in the contract between the agent and the insurer as well as the actual authority of the agent and’ the insured’s knowledge of limitations on the agent’s au *173 thority, are questions of fact involving the course of dealing between the parties and the practices in the business. Harris & Go. v. P. E. Vallee & Co., 29 Ga. App. 769, 770 (116 SE 642); Johnson v. U. 8. Fidelity &c. Co., 93 Ga. App. 336, 341 (91 SE2d 779); 3 Couch on Insurance 2d, 521 et seq., §§ 26:55— 26:60; 16 Appleman 114, § 8695; 3 AmJur2d 487, Agency, § 83. The authority of the agent cannot be determined from these pleadings but must be determined by evidence presented to prove or disprove the insurer’s allegation that the agent effected a binding contract of insurance. The insurer in its brief concedes that it will be required to prove at the trial that the binder issued by the agent was a contract by which it was bound. Unless this binder is enforceable by the insured, the insurer’s payment in settlement of the insured’s claim would not be recoverable damage resulting from the agent’s alleged negligence. Code § 105-2014; accord Benton v. Roberts, 35 Ga. App. 749, 751 (9) (134 SE 846).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Hall, Judge.

The agent argues in support of his demurrer that the petition shows the boat was not a risk located in the vicinity of Atlanta and therefore that he was not authorized to insure it on behalf of the insurer. The alleged location of the boat does not show as a matter of law, however, that the binder was not a contract enforceable against the insurer. The meaning of the term “Atlanta and vicinity” in the contract between the agent and the insurer as well as the actual authority of the agent and’ the insured’s knowledge of limitations on the agent’s au *173 thority, are questions of fact involving the course of dealing between the parties and the practices in the business. Harris & Go. v. P. E. Vallee & Co., 29 Ga. App. 769, 770 (116 SE 642); Johnson v. U. 8. Fidelity &c. Co., 93 Ga. App. 336, 341 (91 SE2d 779); 3 Couch on Insurance 2d, 521 et seq., §§ 26:55— 26:60; 16 Appleman 114, § 8695; 3 AmJur2d 487, Agency, § 83. The authority of the agent cannot be determined from these pleadings but must be determined by evidence presented to prove or disprove the insurer’s allegation that the agent effected a binding contract of insurance. The insurer in its brief concedes that it will be required to prove at the trial that the binder issued by the agent was a contract by which it was bound. Unless this binder is enforceable by the insured, the insurer’s payment in settlement of the insured’s claim would not be recoverable damage resulting from the agent’s alleged negligence. Code § 105-2014; accord Benton v. Roberts, 35 Ga. App. 749, 751 (9) (134 SE 846).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.E.2d 264, 117 Ga. App. 171, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glassman-v-phoenix-insurance-co-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack