Quinn v. Samples

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Quinn v. Samples

274 S.E.2d 141, 156 Ga. App. 168, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2928

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 21, 1980

Docket60473

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 274 S.E.2d 141 (Quinn v. Samples) 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

Quinn v. Samples, 274 S.E.2d 141, 156 Ga. App. 168, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2928 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The instant case involving a release is controlled by the decision in Daniel v. Conrad, 242 Ga. 119, 120 (249 SE2d 603) wherein it was held: “Where the parties to a written instrument have equal opportunities and means of knowing the truth concerning the contents and meaning of the instrument, the courts generally have *169 expected each party to rely upon his own discretion, rather than acting upon the representations of the other side. Bass v. Seaboard A.L.R. Co., 205 Ga. 458, 467 (53 SE2d 895) (1949). Because no fiduciary relationship exists between a claimant and the insured’s insurance carrier, a release obtained by the insurance agent is binding on the claimant even if the statements and representations made by the agent were incorrect or erroneous unless the agent by artifice, trick, or fraud prevented the claimant from reading the entire release. ” (Emphasis supplied.) Accord Conklin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 240 Ga. 58, 60 (239 SE2d 381).

Argued September 15, 1980 Decided October 21, 1980. Harvey A. Monroe, for appellant. I. J. Parkerson, William S. Shelfer, Jr., for appellee.

Here the plaintiff asserts fraud with regard to the representations made by the defendant insurance company as to the legal effect of the agreement. However, no fraud is shown as would have or did prevent the plaintiff from reading the release. Hence, the trial judge did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant insurance company.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Carley, JJ., concur.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The instant case involving a release is controlled by the decision in Daniel v. Conrad, 242 Ga. 119, 120 (249 SE2d 603) wherein it was held: “Where the parties to a written instrument have equal opportunities and means of knowing the truth concerning the contents and meaning of the instrument, the courts generally have *169 expected each party to rely upon his own discretion, rather than acting upon the representations of the other side. Bass v. Seaboard A.L.R. Co., 205 Ga. 458, 467 (53 SE2d 895) (1949). Because no fiduciary relationship exists between a claimant and the insured’s insurance carrier, a release obtained by the insurance agent is binding on the claimant even if the statements and representations made by the agent were incorrect or erroneous unless the agent by artifice, trick, or fraud prevented the claimant from reading the entire release. ” (Emphasis supplied.) Accord Conklin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 240 Ga. 58, 60 (239 SE2d 381).

Argued September 15, 1980 Decided October 21, 1980. Harvey A. Monroe, for appellant. I. J. Parkerson, William S. Shelfer, Jr., for appellee.

Here the plaintiff asserts fraud with regard to the representations made by the defendant insurance company as to the legal effect of the agreement. However, no fraud is shown as would have or did prevent the plaintiff from reading the release. Hence, the trial judge did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant insurance company.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Carley, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 S.E.2d 141, 156 Ga. App. 168, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-samples-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack