Pearl Assurance Co. v. Bernath

Supreme Court of Georgia

Pearl Assurance Co. v. Bernath

196 S.E. 389, 185 Ga. 737, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 497

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 18, 1938

DocketNo. 11975

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 196 S.E. 389 (Pearl Assurance Co. v. Bernath) 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

Pearl Assurance Co. v. Bernath, 196 S.E. 389, 185 Ga. 737, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 497 (Ga. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, Chief Justice.

1. In this suit by a citizen of Georgia against a non-resident insurance company and its resident agent, it appears from the petition, fairly construed, that the plaintiff is seeking first and mainly to recover against both as on the contracts of insurance issued by the company through its agent, and alternatively to recover against both upon the theory of fraud in the conduct of the agent. Central R. Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734 (13 S. E. 750) ; Citizens & Southern Bank v. Union Warehouse & Compress Co., 157 Ga. 434 (9), (10), 454 (122 S. E. 327).

2. The plaintiff could not recover on the contracts against both the company and its agent, since, the agency being disclosed, the agent would not be liable on the contracts in the absence of an express undertaking on his part. Gill v. Tison, 61 Ga. 161; Peeples v. Perry, 18 Ga. App. 369 (89 S. E. 461); Ruffner v. Dunlop, 32 Ga. App. 693 (124 S. E. 544); Pelotte v. Simmons, 41 Ga. App. 198 (4), 200 (152 S. E. 310); 2 C. J. 806; 21 R. C. L. 847.

3. It follows that the petition, so far as it seeks a recovery on the policies, presents a separable controversy as between the plaintiff and the non-resident insurance company; and this being true, and the amount claimed being more than $3000, the action was subject to removal to the United States court, notwithstanding the controversy in relation to liability in tort may be joint as against both the company and its agent. Southern Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 115 Ga. 1022 (42 S. E. 375) ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Bryant, 7 Ga. App. 703 (67 S. E. 1049) ; McKenzie v. Standard Oil Co., 31 Ga. App. 615 (121 S. E. 847) ; Pan-American Petroleum Cor. v. Williams, 45 Ga. App. 490 (165 S. E. 473); Armour & Co. v. Bowden, 50 Ga. App. 476 (3) (178 S. E. 394). The court erred in overruling the petition for removal, filed by the insurance company. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concm-. Haas, Gambrell & Gardner, for plaintiff in error. A. S. Grove and Green & Michael, contra.

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

Russell, Chief Justice.

1. In this suit by a citizen of Georgia against a non-resident insurance company and its resident agent, it appears from the petition, fairly construed, that the plaintiff is seeking first and mainly to recover against both as on the contracts of insurance issued by the company through its agent, and alternatively to recover against both upon the theory of fraud in the conduct of the agent. Central R. Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734 (13 S. E. 750) ; Citizens & Southern Bank v. Union Warehouse & Compress Co., 157 Ga. 434 (9), (10), 454 (122 S. E. 327).

2. The plaintiff could not recover on the contracts against both the company and its agent, since, the agency being disclosed, the agent would not be liable on the contracts in the absence of an express undertaking on his part. Gill v. Tison, 61 Ga. 161; Peeples v. Perry, 18 Ga. App. 369 (89 S. E. 461); Ruffner v. Dunlop, 32 Ga. App. 693 (124 S. E. 544); Pelotte v. Simmons, 41 Ga. App. 198 (4), 200 (152 S. E. 310); 2 C. J. 806; 21 R. C. L. 847.

3. It follows that the petition, so far as it seeks a recovery on the policies, presents a separable controversy as between the plaintiff and the non-resident insurance company; and this being true, and the amount claimed being more than $3000, the action was subject to removal to the United States court, notwithstanding the controversy in relation to liability in tort may be joint as against both the company and its agent. Southern Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 115 Ga. 1022 (42 S. E. 375) ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Bryant, 7 Ga. App. 703 (67 S. E. 1049) ; McKenzie v. Standard Oil Co., 31 Ga. App. 615 (121 S. E. 847) ; Pan-American Petroleum Cor. v. Williams, 45 Ga. App. 490 (165 S. E. 473); Armour & Co. v. Bowden, 50 Ga. App. 476 (3) (178 S. E. 394). The court erred in overruling the petition for removal, filed by the insurance company. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concm-. Haas, Gambrell & Gardner, for plaintiff in error. A. S. Grove and Green & Michael, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 S.E. 389, 185 Ga. 737, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearl-assurance-co-v-bernath-ga-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack