United States Fid. &. Guar. Co v. Corbett
| Decision Date | 20 July 1926 |
| Docket Number | (No. 16961.) |
| Citation | 35 Ga.App. 606,134 S.E. 336 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY &. GUARANTY CO. v. CORBETT. |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Colquitt County; W. B. Thomas, Judge.
Suit by It. J. Corbett against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
The United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company issued to R. J. Corbett a policy of insurance on an automobile, covering "actual loss or damage" thereto "caused solely by accidental collision with another object." The policy contained, among others, the following provisions:
The automobile was injured by an accidental collision with another object, and the insured brought suit against the insurer to recover the amount of loss. The petition was in two counts. The first count alleged that the value of the automobile immediately before the injury was $3,407, that its value immediately thereafter was $650, and that the company was liable to the plaintiff for the difference, $2,757. The further allegations of this count were as follows:
"Petitioner having submitted to the defendant a statement of the amount of loss and damage claimed by him to have been sustained under said policy by reason of said collision, the defendant having refused to pay the same, and the petitioner and the defendant having been unable to agree or to satisfactorily determine the amount of such loss or damage, " the defendant advised its agent at Moultrie, Ga., that the amount of the loss must be determined by appraisers as provided in the policy, and instructed such agent to so notify the plaintiff, in order that he might select an appraiser to act with an appraiser selected by the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon selected an appraiser, and informed the defendant of his action, and the two appraisers thus chosen selected a third appraiser under the provisions of the policy. The appraisers, after due notice to the parties of the time and place of their meeting, "investigated the extent of the loss and damage to petitioner's automobile, determined the amount thereof, and made a written award or finding in which they determined and stated that the sound value of petitioner's automobile, on the date of said wreck, was $3,407, and that the value of the automobile, in its wrecked condition, was $650, and that the amount of loss and damage sustained by petitioner was $2,757."
This allegation was in accordance with the appraisers' finding as to the amount of the loss, as shown by a copy of their report attached to the petition. The report undertook to determine other matters, such as the manner in which the car should be repaired, the time when the repairs should be completed, the right of inspection, and acceptance by the assured, after its repair, should the company elect to repair it.
A few days after the appraisers made and submitted their report, "the defendant, in writing, definitely declined to pay petitioner the aforesaid amount of loss and damage, and advised that it would not even consider said amount of loss and damage so determined and ascertained in the manner aforesaid, nor would it pay to petitioner said amount as the amount of loss and damage claimed by him to have been sustained under said policy and caused by said collision." Plaintiff has "performed and complied with all of the conditions and requirements imposed upon him by said policy." The defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $2,757 as the actual loss or damage to said automobile by reason of said collision, " and in the further sum of $37.50 "paid by petitioner in saving, recovering, and protecting said automobile [from further loss and damage] immediately following said accident, " which expense the plaintiff incurred at the direction of the defendant's agent and in accordance with the provisions of the policy. The defendant has failed and refused to pay the plaintiff "said amounts of loss and damage." The defendant's "denial or liability and its failure and refusal to pay said amounts were in bad faith and without legal excuse or justification, and * * * on account of said conduct of defendant it was necessary for petitioner to employ counsel to maintain and prosecute this suit in order to enforce petitioner's rights under said policy." The defendant is therefore liable to the plaintiff for attorneys' fees and damages in a stated amount, in addition to the principal loss and damage and interest thereon. The second count of the petition contained substantially the same averments as the first count, but was expressly made a suit on the "award." The plaintiff amended the first count by adding the following:
"That the actual loss and damages to said car represents and consists of the amount necessary to spend for the actual cost of repairing and replacing the various parts of said automobile which were destroyed by said collision; that the same amounts to at least $2,757, that the plaintiff lists and gives herewith an itemized statement, showing the items, parts, and articles and the cost of each, together with the other cost required to be expended, necessary for the actual cost of replacing and repairing the damaged and destroyed parts of said automobile; and that plaintiff attaches hereto said list or statement, which is marked 'Exhibit C and made a part of this paragraph."
The exhibit was attached and gave the information stated. There was a further amendment both to the first count and to the second count, but that has been merged in the above statement.
The defendant, prior to the amendments, demurred to each count of the petition bothgenerally and specially. After the amendments the demurrers were renewed and overruled, and the defendant excepted. It is unnecessary to set forth the several grounds of the demurrer in detail. They are sufficiently indicated in the questions dealt with in the opinion.
Hoyt H. Whelchel, of Moultrie, for plaintiff in error.
J. J. Hill, of Pelham, and J. O. Gibson, of Moultrie, for defendant in error.
BELL, J. (after stating the facts as above). [1] 1. In an action by the owner of personal property, such as an automobile, to recover for loss or damage sustained by him as a result of a tortious injury thereto, the measure of damages is to be determined under general principles of law. Olliff v. Howard, 33 Ga. App. 778, 127 S. E. 821. But in a suit on a contract, as a policy of insurance, whereby the owner is insured against actual loss or damage to an automobile by collision, the measure of the insurer's liability will be determined according to the terms of the contract. In an action on an insurance policy to recover the "actual loss or damage" by collision to an automobile, in which it is stipulated that the insurer shall in any event be liable "only for the actual cost of repairing, or, if necessary, replacing the parts damaged and destroyed, " where it is possible by repair and replacement to restore the automobile to its former condition within a reasonable time (Non-Royalty Shoe Co. v. Phoenix Assur. Co. [Mo. App.] 178 S. W. 246; Center Garage Co. v. Columbia Ins. Co., 06 N. J. Law, 456, 115 A. 401), the defendant might by proper pleading and evidence limit the plaintiff's recovery to the amount necessary to accomplish such restoration (Spivy-Johnson Portrait Co. v. Belt Automobile Indemnity Ass'n, 210 Ala. 681, 99 So. 80; Lepman v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 170 111. App. 379; Wolff v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 204 Mo. App. 491, 223 S. W. B10; Md. Motor Car Ins. Co. v. Smith [Tex. Civ. App.] 254 S. W. 526; Commercial Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 80 Ala. 571 [6], 1 So. 202; Burkett v. Ga. Home Ins. Co., 105 Tenn. 548, 58 S. W. 848; Texas Moline Plow Co. v. Niagara, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 168, 87 S. W. 192; McCready v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 61 App. Div. 583, 70 N. Y. S. 778.
The actual cost of repairing or replacing the injured or destroyed parts could be materially greater or less than the actual depreciation in value of the property by reason of the injury. 17 C. J. 877; 26 C. J. 353; 2 Sutherland on Damages (4th Ed.) p. 3040, § 821; Southern Ry. Co. v. Ky. Grocery Co., 166 Ky. 94, 178 S. W. 1162; and cases cited above. But "Policies of insurance will be liberally construed in favor of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pritchett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...167 S.E.2d 610 (1969); Simmons v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Ill Ga.App. 738, 143 S.E.2d 55 (1965); U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Corbett, 35 Ga.App. 606, 134 S.E. 336 (1926); Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins., 788 So.2d 355 (Fl.Ct.App.2001); and Bickel v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.......
-
Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co.
...of Georgia case law dealing with an insurer's obligation to pay for diminution in value, beginning with U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Corbett, 35 Ga.App. 606, 134 S.E. 336, 338 (1926), which held that the undertaking to insure against "actual loss or damage" is the primary obligation, pur......
-
McGowan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co.
...policies and have been duly enforced by courts.5 Appraisal provisions have long appeared in automobile insurance policies in this state.6 In Corbett, a decision by this court in 1926, we held [a]n appraisement such as was contemplated by the terms of the policy in question would not determi......
-
North British & Mercantile Ins. Co v. Parnell, s. 24734, 24741.
...not objectionable. See in this connection Jefferson Fire Ins. Co. v. Brackin, 147 Ga. 47, 92 S.E. 930; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Corbett, 35 Ga.App. 606 (3), 134 S.E. 336. The records in those cases on file in the clerk's office disclose almost identical al legations of "bad ......
-
The Legal
...prominent, although temporary, monument to the Ninth Commandment in its Supreme Court building). [16] U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Corbett, 35 Ga. App. 606, 134 S.E. 336 (1926). [17] State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry, 274 Ga. 498, 503, 556 S.E.2d 114, 119 (2001) (noting "there is a common......