Hill v. North American Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. North American Co.

263 S.E.2d 247, 152 Ga. App. 466, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2962

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 21, 1979

Docket58342

StatusPublished

This text of 263 S.E.2d 247 (Hill v. North American 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

Hill v. North American Co., 263 S.E.2d 247, 152 Ga. App. 466, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2962 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Underwood, Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant, Hill, contends that he renewed his fire insurance policy by making a premium payment to Raymond Moon and subsequently suffered a loss which the insurer failed to pay contending that the policy had not been renewed.

As stated by defendant insurance companies in their brief, "[t]he real issue in this case is whether Raymond Moon was or was not an agent for [defendant company] with authority to bind that company by an alleged oral agreement with [plaintiff] to renew a fire policy.” We find that defendants have not carried their summary judgment burden of removing this issue from the case since a question of fact as to it is clearly presented by the [467]*467affidavit of Moon that plaintiff paid him to renew the policy; that when he received the consideration he was acting as agent for these insurance companies; that as agent for these companies he told plaintiff the policy was renewed; and that as such agent he visited the scene of the fire, accepted proof of loss, and told plaintiff he was covered. Since this testimony comes from a party to the relationship it is not objectionable as being conclusory but is admissible in evidence (Salters v. Pugmire Lincoln-Mercury, 124 Ga. App. 414 (184 SE2d 56) (1971); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Cumbie, 128 Ga. App. 723 (197 SE2d 783) (1973)), and it requires our reversal of the summary judgment granted below.

Submitted September 24,1979 — Decided November 21, 1979. James W. Smith, for appellant. Eugene A. Epting, John Hix, for appellees. Raymond Moon, pro se.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Underwood, Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant, Hill, contends that he renewed his fire insurance policy by making a premium payment to Raymond Moon and subsequently suffered a loss which the insurer failed to pay contending that the policy had not been renewed.

As stated by defendant insurance companies in their brief, "[t]he real issue in this case is whether Raymond Moon was or was not an agent for [defendant company] with authority to bind that company by an alleged oral agreement with [plaintiff] to renew a fire policy.” We find that defendants have not carried their summary judgment burden of removing this issue from the case since a question of fact as to it is clearly presented by the [467]*467affidavit of Moon that plaintiff paid him to renew the policy; that when he received the consideration he was acting as agent for these insurance companies; that as agent for these companies he told plaintiff the policy was renewed; and that as such agent he visited the scene of the fire, accepted proof of loss, and told plaintiff he was covered. Since this testimony comes from a party to the relationship it is not objectionable as being conclusory but is admissible in evidence (Salters v. Pugmire Lincoln-Mercury, 124 Ga. App. 414 (184 SE2d 56) (1971); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Cumbie, 128 Ga. App. 723 (197 SE2d 783) (1973)), and it requires our reversal of the summary judgment granted below.

Submitted September 24,1979 — Decided November 21, 1979. James W. Smith, for appellant. Eugene A. Epting, John Hix, for appellees. Raymond Moon, pro se.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 S.E.2d 247, 152 Ga. App. 466, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-north-american-co-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack