INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Reeves

Court of Appeals of Georgia

INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Reeves

302 S.E.2d 611, 165 Ga. App. 730, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1999

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 10, 1983

Docket65268

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 302 S.E.2d 611 (INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Reeves) 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

INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Reeves, 302 S.E.2d 611, 165 Ga. App. 730, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1999 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

This appeal is from the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the insured in a suit spawned by Jones v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co., 156 Ga. App. 230 (274 SE2d 623) (1980). The trial court ruled that the insured is entitled to the maximum PIP coverage (i.e. $50,000). See OCGA § 33-34-5 (former Code Ann. § 56-3404b (b)) (Ga. L. 1974, pp. 113, 117; 1975, pp. 3, 4; 1975, pp. 1202, 1206). The insurance application at issue suffers from the same alleged defects as the one at issue in Jones. The appellant insurer argues on the one hand that a jury issue exists concerning whether the insured rejected the optional increased coverage after being informed orally of its *731 availability, and on the other hand that the insured lacks standing to complain about the inadequacy of the application because it was signed for him by his wife. Held:

Decided March 10, 1983. O. Wayne Ellerbee, William A. Turner, Jr., for appellant. Joseph B. Gray, Jr., N. Stan Ballew, for appellee.

1. The first issue has been decided adversely to the appellant by the Georgia Supreme Court. See Flewellen v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 250 Ga. 709 (300 SE2d 673) (1983). In that opinion, the court held that “the requirements of subsection b are satisfied by two signatures, one for the acceptance or rejection of optional PIP and another to indicate acceptance or rejection of vehicle damage coverage.” The application in the record before us fails to meet this requirement, which the court held to be retroactive in application.

2. Although the appellee’s wife applied for the insurance in his name, there is no question that the policy was issued in the appellee’s name. The record also reflects that the appellant paid the minimum PIP benefits directly to the appellee without question concerning his status under the policy. This argument is accordingly meritless.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

This appeal is from the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the insured in a suit spawned by Jones v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co., 156 Ga. App. 230 (274 SE2d 623) (1980). The trial court ruled that the insured is entitled to the maximum PIP coverage (i.e. $50,000). See OCGA § 33-34-5 (former Code Ann. § 56-3404b (b)) (Ga. L. 1974, pp. 113, 117; 1975, pp. 3, 4; 1975, pp. 1202, 1206). The insurance application at issue suffers from the same alleged defects as the one at issue in Jones. The appellant insurer argues on the one hand that a jury issue exists concerning whether the insured rejected the optional increased coverage after being informed orally of its *731 availability, and on the other hand that the insured lacks standing to complain about the inadequacy of the application because it was signed for him by his wife. Held:

Decided March 10, 1983. O. Wayne Ellerbee, William A. Turner, Jr., for appellant. Joseph B. Gray, Jr., N. Stan Ballew, for appellee.

1. The first issue has been decided adversely to the appellant by the Georgia Supreme Court. See Flewellen v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 250 Ga. 709 (300 SE2d 673) (1983). In that opinion, the court held that “the requirements of subsection b are satisfied by two signatures, one for the acceptance or rejection of optional PIP and another to indicate acceptance or rejection of vehicle damage coverage.” The application in the record before us fails to meet this requirement, which the court held to be retroactive in application.

2. Although the appellee’s wife applied for the insurance in his name, there is no question that the policy was issued in the appellee’s name. The record also reflects that the appellant paid the minimum PIP benefits directly to the appellee without question concerning his status under the policy. This argument is accordingly meritless.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 S.E.2d 611, 165 Ga. App. 730, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-indemnity-company-v-reeves-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack