Minter v. Georgia Piggly-Wiggly Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Minter v. Georgia Piggly-Wiggly Co.

194 S.E. 176, 185 Ga. 116, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 679

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 3, 1937

DocketNo. 11921

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 194 S.E. 176 (Minter v. Georgia Piggly-Wiggly Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Minter v. Georgia Piggly-Wiggly Co., 194 S.E. 176, 185 Ga. 116, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 679 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. While there is authority for the proposition that where one undertakes to procure insurance for another, and is guilty of fraud or negligence in his undertaking, he is liable for loss or damage to the limit of the amount of the agreed policy (Thomas v. Funkhouser, 91 Ga. 478, 481, 18 S. E. 312; Elam v. Smithdeal Realty &c. Co., 182 N. C. 599, 109 S. E. 632, 18 A. L. R. 1210, notes, 1214-1220; Rezac v. Zima, 96 Kan. 752, 153 Pac. 500, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1035; 32 C. J. 1087, 1088, and cit.), such a rule would have no application where, as in this case, an employer, in deducting the amount of a premium from the plaintiff employee’s salary, merely stated to him that he would be or had been covered by a particular master group-insurance policy, when in fact he had not at that time become eligible for such insurance, and the previously written policy did not and could not have been made to cover the employee, and where it did not appear that the employee, in relying upon such statement by the employer, failed to procure other like insurance, which otherwise he would and could have obtained.

2. The court properly dismissed the action on the general and special demurrers, on failure of the plaintiff to amend the petition after opportunity given. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Hoplcms & Thomas, for plaintiff. Hooper & Hooper, for defendant.

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

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. While there is authority for the proposition that where one undertakes to procure insurance for another, and is guilty of fraud or negligence in his undertaking, he is liable for loss or damage to the limit of the amount of the agreed policy (Thomas v. Funkhouser, 91 Ga. 478, 481, 18 S. E. 312; Elam v. Smithdeal Realty &c. Co., 182 N. C. 599, 109 S. E. 632, 18 A. L. R. 1210, notes, 1214-1220; Rezac v. Zima, 96 Kan. 752, 153 Pac. 500, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1035; 32 C. J. 1087, 1088, and cit.), such a rule would have no application where, as in this case, an employer, in deducting the amount of a premium from the plaintiff employee’s salary, merely stated to him that he would be or had been covered by a particular master group-insurance policy, when in fact he had not at that time become eligible for such insurance, and the previously written policy did not and could not have been made to cover the employee, and where it did not appear that the employee, in relying upon such statement by the employer, failed to procure other like insurance, which otherwise he would and could have obtained.

2. The court properly dismissed the action on the general and special demurrers, on failure of the plaintiff to amend the petition after opportunity given. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Hoplcms & Thomas, for plaintiff. Hooper & Hooper, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.E. 176, 185 Ga. 116, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minter-v-georgia-piggly-wiggly-co-ga-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack