Stallings v. Chance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stallings v. Chance

236 S.E.2d 110, 142 Ga. App. 491, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1668

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 11, 1977

Docket53701

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 S.E.2d 110 (Stallings v. Chance) 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

Stallings v. Chance, 236 S.E.2d 110, 142 Ga. App. 491, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1668 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Shulman, Judge.

Appellant’s car was damaged extensively in a wreck involving a car owned by one appellee and driven by the other. After the repair of his car, which was apparently paid for by his insurance company, appellant brought suit against the appellees seeking damages for loss of use of his car while it was being repaired and for the diminution in value of his car resulting from the collision. Appellant’s motion for summary judgment as to liability was denied. Appellees’ motion for summary judgment was granted. This appeal is from both decisions.

1. Since appellant has not followed the procedures for appeal provided for in Code Ann. §§ 6-701 and 81A-156, the enumerations of error complaining of the denial of appellant’s motion for summary judgment are not properly before this court. Marietta-Yamaha, Inc. v. Thomas, 237 Ga. 840 (2) (229 SE2d 753).

2. Appellees’ motion for summary judgment was based on a subrogation clause in appellant’s insurance policy. That clause provided that the insurer succeeded to all rights of recovery of the policyholder in the event of payment under any one of several coverages, including collision. Since the fact of payment was established by appellant’s failure to respond to a request for admissions on the subject, it follows that the insurer is now the only party who can bring the action. Lindsey v. Samoluk, 236 Ga., 171 (223 SE2d 147); Parker Plumbing &c. Co. v. Kurtz, 225 Ga. 31 (165 SE2d 729); Vigilant Ins. Co. v. *492 Bowman, 128 Ga. App. 872 (198 SE2d 346).

Argued April 11, 1977 Decided May 11, 1977 Rehearing denied June 7, 1977 Clyde W. Chapman, for appellant. Dunaway, Haas & Broome, Al Bridges, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Shulman, Judge.

Appellant’s car was damaged extensively in a wreck involving a car owned by one appellee and driven by the other. After the repair of his car, which was apparently paid for by his insurance company, appellant brought suit against the appellees seeking damages for loss of use of his car while it was being repaired and for the diminution in value of his car resulting from the collision. Appellant’s motion for summary judgment as to liability was denied. Appellees’ motion for summary judgment was granted. This appeal is from both decisions.

1. Since appellant has not followed the procedures for appeal provided for in Code Ann. §§ 6-701 and 81A-156, the enumerations of error complaining of the denial of appellant’s motion for summary judgment are not properly before this court. Marietta-Yamaha, Inc. v. Thomas, 237 Ga. 840 (2) (229 SE2d 753).

2. Appellees’ motion for summary judgment was based on a subrogation clause in appellant’s insurance policy. That clause provided that the insurer succeeded to all rights of recovery of the policyholder in the event of payment under any one of several coverages, including collision. Since the fact of payment was established by appellant’s failure to respond to a request for admissions on the subject, it follows that the insurer is now the only party who can bring the action. Lindsey v. Samoluk, 236 Ga., 171 (223 SE2d 147); Parker Plumbing &c. Co. v. Kurtz, 225 Ga. 31 (165 SE2d 729); Vigilant Ins. Co. v. *492 Bowman, 128 Ga. App. 872 (198 SE2d 346).

Argued April 11, 1977 Decided May 11, 1977 Rehearing denied June 7, 1977 Clyde W. Chapman, for appellant. Dunaway, Haas & Broome, Al Bridges, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.E.2d 110, 142 Ga. App. 491, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stallings-v-chance-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack