Whitlock v. INTERSTATE LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Whitlock v. INTERSTATE LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY

144 S.E.2d 541, 112 Ga. App. 235, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 652

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 9, 1965

Docket41386

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 144 S.E.2d 541 (Whitlock v. INTERSTATE LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY) 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

Whitlock v. INTERSTATE LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, 144 S.E.2d 541, 112 Ga. App. 235, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 652 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

This case arose out of the same action as Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co. v. Whitlock, 112 Ga. App. 212, ante. The trial court, after directing the verdict for the face amount of the policy in favor of the plaintiff-insured, submitted the issue of bad faith to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1.00 for bad faith and $1,000 as attorney’s fees. The court granted the defendant-insurer’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to that portion of the verdict awarding bad faith penalties, to which judgment the plaintiff excepts. Held:

In an action to recover penalties and attorney’s fees for the refusal in bad faith of an insurer to pay a claim, the burden of showing that the refusal was made in bad faith is on the insured and a defense going far enough to show reasonable and probable cause for making it would vindicate the good faith of the company as effectually as would a complete defense to the action. Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 110 Ga. App. 557 (139 SE2d 429) by answer to certified question in 220 Ga. 323 (138 SE2d 668). Whether or not the jury finds the defense of the company to the action complete in the new trial granted in the company’s appeal, the evidence, as set out in our ruling on the company’s appeal, infra, was sufficient to show “reasonable and probable cause” in the denial of the claim. There was no evidence that the decedent had been known to drink heavily in the past and that his blood contained enough alcohol, -0.30%, to raise a presumption of intoxication. The trial court erred initially in submitting the issue of bad faith to the jury since there was evidence which showed reasonable and probable cause for the denial of the claim. The court therefore did not err in its judgment granting the judgment n.o.v. in favor of the defendant-insurer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan and Deen, JJ., concur. *236 William Edward Spence, for plaintiff in error. Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, Theodore G. Frankel, Lynn A. Downey, contra.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

This case arose out of the same action as Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co. v. Whitlock, 112 Ga. App. 212, ante. The trial court, after directing the verdict for the face amount of the policy in favor of the plaintiff-insured, submitted the issue of bad faith to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1.00 for bad faith and $1,000 as attorney’s fees. The court granted the defendant-insurer’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to that portion of the verdict awarding bad faith penalties, to which judgment the plaintiff excepts. Held:

In an action to recover penalties and attorney’s fees for the refusal in bad faith of an insurer to pay a claim, the burden of showing that the refusal was made in bad faith is on the insured and a defense going far enough to show reasonable and probable cause for making it would vindicate the good faith of the company as effectually as would a complete defense to the action. Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 110 Ga. App. 557 (139 SE2d 429) by answer to certified question in 220 Ga. 323 (138 SE2d 668). Whether or not the jury finds the defense of the company to the action complete in the new trial granted in the company’s appeal, the evidence, as set out in our ruling on the company’s appeal, infra, was sufficient to show “reasonable and probable cause” in the denial of the claim. There was no evidence that the decedent had been known to drink heavily in the past and that his blood contained enough alcohol, -0.30%, to raise a presumption of intoxication. The trial court erred initially in submitting the issue of bad faith to the jury since there was evidence which showed reasonable and probable cause for the denial of the claim. The court therefore did not err in its judgment granting the judgment n.o.v. in favor of the defendant-insurer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan and Deen, JJ., concur. *236 William Edward Spence, for plaintiff in error. Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, Theodore G. Frankel, Lynn A. Downey, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E.2d 541, 112 Ga. App. 235, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitlock-v-interstate-life-accident-insurance-company-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack