Security Life Insurance v. Clark

590 S.E.2d 729, 260 Ga. App. 289, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 766
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 10, 2003
DocketA03A0843
StatusPublished

This text of 590 S.E.2d 729 (Security Life Insurance v. Clark) 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
Security Life Insurance v. Clark, 590 S.E.2d 729, 260 Ga. App. 289, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 766 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Order of Court.

Appellees have moved this Court to dismiss this appeal as moot or, in the alternative, to substitute St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) in lieu of Gordon B. Clark and Clarice J. Clark as appellee.

Appellees’ motion to dismiss is denied. Security Life Insurance Company’s (“Security”) appeal is not moot even though co-defendant St. Paul, as surety on the supersedeas bond, paid the full amount of the judgment awarded to the Clarks, since St. Paul has demanded indemnification from Security, and a reversal of the judgment on the grounds urged by Security will reduce any potential obligation that Security may have to St. Paul to indemnify it for payment of the judgment. See Johnson & Harber Constr. Co. v. Bing, 220 Ga. App. 179 (469 SE2d 697) (1996) (appeal not moot even though co-defendant tortfeasor settled with plaintiff after the notice of appeal was filed, as the right of contribution still existed between the appellant and settling co-defendant); Seaton v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co., 189 Ga. App. 546, 547-548 (376 SE2d 712) (1988) (test of mootness is whether the appellant, in the case of reversal, could claim or enforce the rights insisted upon).

However, the Clarks have transferred and assigned the judgment appealed from and the fi. fa. issued thereon to St. Paul. Therefore, it is St. Paul, not the Clarks, who has the right to enforce that judgment and execution against Security. Therefore, St. Paul is substituted as the appellee, and the Clarks are dismissed as parties to this appeal.

It is so ordered.

King & Spalding, Byron Attridge, Benjamin F Easterlin IV, S. Stewart Haskins II, Porter, Orrison & Dosier, J. Alexander Porter, for St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company.

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

Related

Seaton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
376 S.E.2d 712 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Johnson & Harber Construction Co. v. Bing
469 S.E.2d 697 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
590 S.E.2d 729, 260 Ga. App. 289, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-life-insurance-v-clark-gactapp-2003.