Spearman v. Southeastern Highway Contracting Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Spearman v. Southeastern Highway Contracting Co.

191 S.E.2d 351, 126 Ga. App. 549, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1208

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 22, 1972

Docket47253

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 191 S.E.2d 351 (Spearman v. Southeastern Highway Contracting Co.) 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

Spearman v. Southeastern Highway Contracting Co., 191 S.E.2d 351, 126 Ga. App. 549, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1208 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. See Spearman v. Southeastern Hwy. Contr. Co., 125 Ga. App. 85 (186 SE2d 484). The only issue for determination in this case is whether the insurance policy in question gave the insurer the authority to settle a claim against the insured without his consent so as to bring the policy within the provisions of Code Ann. § 56-408.1 (Ga. L. 1963, p. 643). The policy provided in part: "The company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent, and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient.”

In Aetna Cas. &c. Co. v. Brooks, 218 Ga. 593 (129 SE2d 798), the Supreme Court held that language granting to the insurer a right to "make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deemed expedient” established an agency relationship between the insurer and the insured thus causing a settlement entered into by the insurer without the consent of the insured to be a bar to the assertion of a claim by the insured against the party with whom the insurer had settled. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hill, 218 Ga. 430 (128 SE2d 321). Code Ann. § 56-408.1 was then enacted in reaction to the Brooks case to provide, among other things, that "any provision in a liability policy of insurance which provides that the insurer shall have the right to compromise or settle claims of third persons against the insured without the consent of the insured shall be deemed to create, as between the insurer and the insured, the relationship of an independent contractor so that the insured shall not be precluded from asserting a claim or cause of action against third persons, notwithstanding the settlement by the insurer of such claims of third persons, unless the insured shall [550]*550previously have consented thereto in writing.”

Argued June 5, 1972— Decided June 22, 1972. Ray C. Norvell, for appellants. Neely, Freeman & Hawkins, Paul M. Hawkins, William E. Cetti, Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick, for appellees.

The policy in the case sub judice does give the insurer the right to settle a claim against the insured without his consent and the granting of the summary judgment was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

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

Quillian, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. See Spearman v. Southeastern Hwy. Contr. Co., 125 Ga. App. 85 (186 SE2d 484). The only issue for determination in this case is whether the insurance policy in question gave the insurer the authority to settle a claim against the insured without his consent so as to bring the policy within the provisions of Code Ann. § 56-408.1 (Ga. L. 1963, p. 643). The policy provided in part: "The company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent, and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient.”

In Aetna Cas. &c. Co. v. Brooks, 218 Ga. 593 (129 SE2d 798), the Supreme Court held that language granting to the insurer a right to "make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deemed expedient” established an agency relationship between the insurer and the insured thus causing a settlement entered into by the insurer without the consent of the insured to be a bar to the assertion of a claim by the insured against the party with whom the insurer had settled. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hill, 218 Ga. 430 (128 SE2d 321). Code Ann. § 56-408.1 was then enacted in reaction to the Brooks case to provide, among other things, that "any provision in a liability policy of insurance which provides that the insurer shall have the right to compromise or settle claims of third persons against the insured without the consent of the insured shall be deemed to create, as between the insurer and the insured, the relationship of an independent contractor so that the insured shall not be precluded from asserting a claim or cause of action against third persons, notwithstanding the settlement by the insurer of such claims of third persons, unless the insured shall [550]*550previously have consented thereto in writing.”

Argued June 5, 1972— Decided June 22, 1972. Ray C. Norvell, for appellants. Neely, Freeman & Hawkins, Paul M. Hawkins, William E. Cetti, Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick, for appellees.

The policy in the case sub judice does give the insurer the right to settle a claim against the insured without his consent and the granting of the summary judgment was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E.2d 351, 126 Ga. App. 549, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spearman-v-southeastern-highway-contracting-co-gactapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack