Sunset Villa, Inc. v. Mothner-Simowitz Insurance Agency, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sunset Villa, Inc. v. Mothner-Simowitz Insurance Agency, Inc.

236 S.E.2d 156, 142 Ga. App. 424, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1644

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 27, 1977

Docket53681

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 S.E.2d 156 (Sunset Villa, Inc. v. Mothner-Simowitz Insurance Agency, Inc.) 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

Sunset Villa, Inc. v. Mothner-Simowitz Insurance Agency, Inc., 236 S.E.2d 156, 142 Ga. App. 424, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1644 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

The sole issue in this appeal by Sunset Villa, Inc., is whether the trial court erred in allowing two Augusta insurance agents to testify that, to their knowledge, the availability of certain coverage from a particular insurance carrier was not commonly known among insurance agents during the relevant period. There was no error. Both witnesses testified they had extensive experience in the insurance business in Augusta; both deal in the type of insurance involved; and both were currently familiar with the particular insurance carrier mentioned. Once this foundation to the witnesses’ knowledge was laid, and once they testified to matters purportedly within their knowledge, the foundations for and competency of their knowledge could always be further tested by cross examination. Furthermore, knowledge acquired within the scope of a person’s profession is generally not objectionable as based on hearsay. See 31A CJS 568, 571, Evidence, § 200; Coffee v. William Marsh Rice University, 408 SW2d 269, 284 (Tex. Civ. App.). The admission of the testimony was proper; the denial of a motion for new trial was proper; and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

The sole issue in this appeal by Sunset Villa, Inc., is whether the trial court erred in allowing two Augusta insurance agents to testify that, to their knowledge, the availability of certain coverage from a particular insurance carrier was not commonly known among insurance agents during the relevant period. There was no error. Both witnesses testified they had extensive experience in the insurance business in Augusta; both deal in the type of insurance involved; and both were currently familiar with the particular insurance carrier mentioned. Once this foundation to the witnesses’ knowledge was laid, and once they testified to matters purportedly within their knowledge, the foundations for and competency of their knowledge could always be further tested by cross examination. Furthermore, knowledge acquired within the scope of a person’s profession is generally not objectionable as based on hearsay. See 31A CJS 568, 571, Evidence, § 200; Coffee v. William Marsh Rice University, 408 SW2d 269, 284 (Tex. Civ. App.). The admission of the testimony was proper; the denial of a motion for new trial was proper; and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.E.2d 156, 142 Ga. App. 424, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunset-villa-inc-v-mothner-simowitz-insurance-agency-inc-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack