Travelers Indemnity Company v. Worley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Travelers Indemnity Company v. Worley

168 S.E.2d 168, 119 Ga. App. 537, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1154

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 7, 1969

Docket44302

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 168 S.E.2d 168 (Travelers Indemnity Company v. Worley) 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

Travelers Indemnity Company v. Worley, 168 S.E.2d 168, 119 Ga. App. 537, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1154 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

The Travelers Indemnity Company brought suit against L. C. Worley, d/b/a Worley Transfer Company, for additional premiums due which were determined by an audit at the end of the policy year. The insurance contract provided that an estimated premium would be paid by Worley at the inception of the policy year, and that any adjustments to the premium determined to be necessary by Travelers’ audit at the conclusion of the policy year would be paid at the completion of the audit. During the course of the policy year, certain of Worley’s trucks were of such a size and weight as required that they be rated in a higher premium class because of a prior change in the uniform classification of motor vehicles governed by the Insurance Commissioner. The discrepancy was discovered upon Travelers’ audit, but Worley refused to pay the difference between the estimated premium and that which was found to be due on the audit, claiming that Travelers was equitably estopped by not discovering the discrepancy by audit in prior years. When Travelers brought suit, Worley therefore denied liability, setting up the defense of *538 equitable estoppel, and brought a cross action based on Travelers’ cancellation of the renewal policy which was effective prior to the date of the audit.

Argued March 4, 1969—Decided April 7, 1969. Greene, Buckley, DeBieux, Moore & Jones, Edgar A. Neely, III, for appellant. Albert A. Roberts, for appellee.

At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed verdicts for Travelers on both the main and cross actions, but left the amount of the verdict Travelers was to receive to the jury. The testimony of the auditor and underwriter was that the amount due under the audit was $1,831. In addition, Travelers’ business records were admitted without objection (see Code Ann. § 38-711), and they show on their face that $1,831 was due. The jury returned a verdict for $300, and Travelers appeals. Held:

Since the amount due depended upon the earned premium for the policy year as determined by audit, and the evidence is uncontradicted that the balance between the paid estimated premium and the earned premium was $1,831, it was error to enter judgment on a verdict of only $300'. Compare Walker v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 74 Ga. App. 517 (40 SE 228), where the insured under a workmen’s compensation policy sued to recover overcharges resulting from rate changes.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

The Travelers Indemnity Company brought suit against L. C. Worley, d/b/a Worley Transfer Company, for additional premiums due which were determined by an audit at the end of the policy year. The insurance contract provided that an estimated premium would be paid by Worley at the inception of the policy year, and that any adjustments to the premium determined to be necessary by Travelers’ audit at the conclusion of the policy year would be paid at the completion of the audit. During the course of the policy year, certain of Worley’s trucks were of such a size and weight as required that they be rated in a higher premium class because of a prior change in the uniform classification of motor vehicles governed by the Insurance Commissioner. The discrepancy was discovered upon Travelers’ audit, but Worley refused to pay the difference between the estimated premium and that which was found to be due on the audit, claiming that Travelers was equitably estopped by not discovering the discrepancy by audit in prior years. When Travelers brought suit, Worley therefore denied liability, setting up the defense of *538 equitable estoppel, and brought a cross action based on Travelers’ cancellation of the renewal policy which was effective prior to the date of the audit.

Argued March 4, 1969—Decided April 7, 1969. Greene, Buckley, DeBieux, Moore & Jones, Edgar A. Neely, III, for appellant. Albert A. Roberts, for appellee.

At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed verdicts for Travelers on both the main and cross actions, but left the amount of the verdict Travelers was to receive to the jury. The testimony of the auditor and underwriter was that the amount due under the audit was $1,831. In addition, Travelers’ business records were admitted without objection (see Code Ann. § 38-711), and they show on their face that $1,831 was due. The jury returned a verdict for $300, and Travelers appeals. Held:

Since the amount due depended upon the earned premium for the policy year as determined by audit, and the evidence is uncontradicted that the balance between the paid estimated premium and the earned premium was $1,831, it was error to enter judgment on a verdict of only $300'. Compare Walker v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 74 Ga. App. 517 (40 SE 228), where the insured under a workmen’s compensation policy sued to recover overcharges resulting from rate changes.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.E.2d 168, 119 Ga. App. 537, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-indemnity-company-v-worley-gactapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack