Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Harrod

Decision Date16 November 1932
Docket Number22308.
Citation166 S.E. 870,46 Ga.App. 127
PartiesMETROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. HARROD.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1932.

Syllabus by the Court.

In suit on policy, petition should show that which appears on face or in body of policy.

Failure to set forth group policy sued on, as well as certificate issued to employee made petition specially demurrable as not setting forth insurance contract sued on (Civ. Code 1910, § 5541).

1. In a suit to recover money on an insurance policy, plaintiff's petition should show that which appears upon the face or in the body of the policy.

2. It appearing that the policy of group insurance sued upon in the instant case consisted of both the group-insurance policy issued to the employer and the certificate issued to the employee, and only the latter instrument being set forth in the petition or attached thereto, the special demurrer, which attacked the petition upon the ground that it did not set forth the insurance contract sued upon, should have been sustained.

Error from City Court of Savannah; John Rourke, Judge.

Suit by John P. Harrod against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant brings error.

Reversed.

Wm. L Clay, of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.

W. G Carroll and Cobb & Bright, all of Savannah, for defendant in error.

HOOPER J. (after stating the foregoing facts).

After a careful consideration of the demurrer to the plaintiff's original petition and to the petition as finally amended, we are satisfied that the court properly overruled each and every ground thereof with the exception of that ground of the demurrer (filed November 7, 1931) which complains that the contract of insurance upon which suit was brought was not set forth. In our opinion that ground of the demurrer should have been sustained, and the petition, unless amended to cure such defect, should have been dismissed. The certificate attached to the plaintiff's petition was issued by the defendant company expressly "under and subject to the terms and conditions" of a certain group policy of defendant company in favor of Central of Georgia Railway Company. This certificate does not contain, nor does it purport to contain all of the terms and conditions of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant company. The obligations or...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT