Torrance v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Supreme Court of Georgia

Torrance v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

140 S.E.2d 840, 220 Ga. 639, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 588

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1965

Docket22637

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 140 S.E.2d 840 (Torrance v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY) 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

Torrance v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 140 S.E.2d 840, 220 Ga. 639, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 588 (Ga. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The petition alleges that suit had, without the written permission of the insurer, been prosecuted by the insured against the tortfeasor to judgment. The policy provides that it does not cover a claim where the insured settles with the tortfeasor or sued to judgment a claim against such tortfeasor without the written consent of the insurer. *640 The trial court overruled the general demurrer of the insurer. The Court of Appeals in Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co. v. Torrance, 110 Ga. App. 4 (137 SE2d 551), reversed, and this court granted the application of the insured for the writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Held:

Argued January 11, 1965 Decided February 4, 1965 Rehearing denied February 18, 1965. Adams, O’Neal, Steele, Thornton & Hemingway, H. T. O’Neal, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, Cubbedge Snow, Jr., contra.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and after further study of the case, we reach the conclusion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is sound. The opinion of that court is clear and comprehensive, and further discussion by this court is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Quillian, J., who dissents.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The petition alleges that suit had, without the written permission of the insurer, been prosecuted by the insured against the tortfeasor to judgment. The policy provides that it does not cover a claim where the insured settles with the tortfeasor or sued to judgment a claim against such tortfeasor without the written consent of the insurer. *640 The trial court overruled the general demurrer of the insurer. The Court of Appeals in Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co. v. Torrance, 110 Ga. App. 4 (137 SE2d 551), reversed, and this court granted the application of the insured for the writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Held:

Argued January 11, 1965 Decided February 4, 1965 Rehearing denied February 18, 1965. Adams, O’Neal, Steele, Thornton & Hemingway, H. T. O’Neal, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, Cubbedge Snow, Jr., contra.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and after further study of the case, we reach the conclusion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is sound. The opinion of that court is clear and comprehensive, and further discussion by this court is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Quillian, J., who dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E.2d 840, 220 Ga. 639, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torrance-v-cotton-states-mutual-insurance-company-ga-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack