Life & Casualty Co. v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Life & Casualty Co. v. Smith

179 S.E. 744, 51 Ga. App. 122, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 593

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1935

Docket24268

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 744 (Life & Casualty Co. v. Smith) 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

Life & Casualty Co. v. Smith, 179 S.E. 744, 51 Ga. App. 122, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 593 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

Plaintiff sued the defendant company upon a life-insurance policy under which he was beneficiary. In his petition he alleged that the policy was in effect at the time of the death of the insured, that notice of such death was in due time properly submitted to the company, and that his continued demands for payment were refused by the company. The company defended on the ground that the insured had within two years prior to the issuance of the policy been treated by a physician for a serious disorder or disease, to wit, goiter and extreme nervousness, and that under a provision of the policy it was only liable for the return of the premiums. The evidence for the defendant sustained its • defense, while the evidence for the plaintiff denied it. The jury found for the plaintiff the full amount of the policy, together with damages and attorney’s fees. Defendant excepts to the finding by the jury of the last two items. Held:

1. Section 2549 of the Civil Code (1910) allows damages and attorney’s fees to be recovered against an insurance company in a suit against it on an insurance policy only when “it is made to appear to the jury trying the same that the refusal of the company to pay said loss was in bad faith.”

2. “The terms ‘bad faith’ are not the equivalent of actual fraud, but they mean any frivolous or unfounded [italics ours] refusal in law or in fact to comply with the requisition of the policyholder to pay according to the terms of his contract and the conditions imposed by statute.” Cotton States Life Ins. Co. v. Edwards, 74 Ga. 220. “Probable cause for refusing payment will negative the imputation of bad faith, and without such probable cause refusal will be at the company’s peril.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 85 Ga. 751 (12 S. E. 18); Ga. Life Ins. Co. v. McCranie, 12 Ga. App. 855, 860 (78 S. E. 1115).

3. Under the above principles the evidence in the case at bar was amply sufficient to show lack of bad faith on the part of the insurance company in refusing payment of the insured’s claim. There was ample evidence upon which the jury might have based a verdict in favor of the defendant’s contention. Judgment is therefore affirmed upon the condition that the damages and attorney’s fees be stricken. Otherwise the judgment is reversed.

Judgment affirmed on condition.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

Plaintiff sued the defendant company upon a life-insurance policy under which he was beneficiary. In his petition he alleged that the policy was in effect at the time of the death of the insured, that notice of such death was in due time properly submitted to the company, and that his continued demands for payment were refused by the company. The company defended on the ground that the insured had within two years prior to the issuance of the policy been treated by a physician for a serious disorder or disease, to wit, goiter and extreme nervousness, and that under a provision of the policy it was only liable for the return of the premiums. The evidence for the defendant sustained its • defense, while the evidence for the plaintiff denied it. The jury found for the plaintiff the full amount of the policy, together with damages and attorney’s fees. Defendant excepts to the finding by the jury of the last two items. Held:

1. Section 2549 of the Civil Code (1910) allows damages and attorney’s fees to be recovered against an insurance company in a suit against it on an insurance policy only when “it is made to appear to the jury trying the same that the refusal of the company to pay said loss was in bad faith.”

2. “The terms ‘bad faith’ are not the equivalent of actual fraud, but they mean any frivolous or unfounded [italics ours] refusal in law or in fact to comply with the requisition of the policyholder to pay according to the terms of his contract and the conditions imposed by statute.” Cotton States Life Ins. Co. v. Edwards, 74 Ga. 220. “Probable cause for refusing payment will negative the imputation of bad faith, and without such probable cause refusal will be at the company’s peril.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 85 Ga. 751 (12 S. E. 18); Ga. Life Ins. Co. v. McCranie, 12 Ga. App. 855, 860 (78 S. E. 1115).

3. Under the above principles the evidence in the case at bar was amply sufficient to show lack of bad faith on the part of the insurance company in refusing payment of the insured’s claim. There was ample evidence upon which the jury might have based a verdict in favor of the defendant’s contention. Judgment is therefore affirmed upon the condition that the damages and attorney’s fees be stricken. Otherwise the judgment is reversed.

Judgment affirmed on condition.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 744, 51 Ga. App. 122, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/life-casualty-co-v-smith-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack