Thomas v. Funkhouser

18 S.E. 312, 91 Ga. 478
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 3, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 18 S.E. 312 (Thomas v. Funkhouser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas v. Funkhouser, 18 S.E. 312, 91 Ga. 478 (Ga. 1893).

Opinion

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

Whether tested by the general law irrespective of the particular custom which seems to have prevailed at Borne in the transaction of insurance business, or by that custom itself, there was a prima facie liability on the defendant to answer for the damages in the present case. He was the plaintiff's agent to keep the premises insured. She had reason to rely upon him and to believe that he had done so. Under the code, §2794, there could be no valid contract of insurance without writing. The duty of keeping the property insured would therefore embrace the duty of seeing that some contract of insurance m writing was kept on foot. No such contract covering the period at which this loss occurred was ever consummated, though a policy was written up and might possibly have been delivered if the local custom in respect to collecting the premium had been complied with. But that was not complied with, and hence the writing up of the policy counted for nothing. It is said that it was the company’s fault that the premium was not paid, because the custom was for the companies to send out bills for premiums and in this instance no bill was sent. But it is not sufficient for an agent employed to keep up insurance to put the company in fault. The owner of the property does not want any company to be put m fault, because that would most probably involve a lawsuit. What the owner wants is to have right and regular insurance kept up, so as to avoid trouble and litigation in case loss should occur. It would be unreasonable to allow an agent to turn over a lawsuit to his principal, even though a recovery might ultimately be had, instead of a proper and regular contract of insurance, at least one fully consummated with the insurance company, instead of lacking a material element of con[482]*482summation according to general law and tire local usage.

Tbe court erred in not granting a new tidal.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Charles Parrott & Associates, Inc. v. Hunt
305 S.E.2d 879 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Trust Co. v. Thompson
212 S.E.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Wright Body Works, Inc. v. Columbus Interstate Insurance Agency
210 S.E.2d 801 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Anderson v. REDWAL MUSIC COMPANY
176 S.E.2d 645 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Sutker v. Pennsylvania Insurance
155 S.E.2d 694 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
S & a CORPORATION v. Berger & Co.
140 S.E.2d 509 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Georgia Insurance Service, Inc. v. Wise
103 S.E.2d 445 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Heisley v. Allied American Mutual Fire Insurance
30 S.E.2d 285 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Minter v. Georgia Piggly-Wiggly Co.
194 S.E. 176 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Leland v. Oliver
255 P. 775 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Elam v. . Realty Co.
109 S.E. 632 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Elam v. Smithdeal Realty & Insurance
109 S.E. 632 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Athens Mutual Insurance v. Evans
64 S.E. 993 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Dodge v. Hatchett
45 S.E. 667 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 S.E. 312, 91 Ga. 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-funkhouser-ga-1893.