American Liberty Ins. Co. v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 16 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 44467,44467,2 |
| Parties | AMERICAN LIBERTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Z. B. SANDERS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Zorn & Royal, William A. Zorn, Jesup, for appellant.
Jack J. Helms, Homerville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
After obtaining judgment against an uninsured motorist appellee instituted suit against American Liberty Insurance Company, with which he carried a public liability and property damage policy, alleging on one count that he was entitled to recover on the uninsured motorist coverage in his policy and in another that he had been damaged by reason of the company's failure to include it as a part of the policy coverage to protect him against loss occasioned by an uninsured motorist. The company answered, asserting that in the application for the policy plaintiff had specifically rejected the uninsured motorist coverage. In a trial before the judge without a jury judgment was awarded the plaintiff, from which defendant insurance company appeals.
The application for the policy sued on is included in the record, having been introduced as a part of the evidence. In it, above the applicant's signature and under the portion dealing with the coverages to be included appears: 'Family protection (uninsured motorist), Rejected.' The application consisted of numbered questions one through fifteen, on the front and reverse side of a single sheet of paper. The matter of what coverage was to be included and what was rejected was covered in the answers to question number 3. The only place for signing was following the last question on the reverse side, indicating 'Must be signed by applicant,' and above which appeared the statement, 'I hereby declare to the best of my knowledge and belief that all of the foregoing statements are true and that these statements are offered as an inducement to the company to issue the policy for which I am applying.' The broker to whom the application was made testified that he explained the uninsured motorist coverage to Mr. Sanders when taking his application and that he then specifically rejected it, though it is conceded that Sanders would, if permitted, deny that he was asked about it. The court ruled that he could not so testify because it would be an attempt to vary terms of the application, and that ruling is unexcepted to. There is no cross appeal. Held:
1. The record is brief and is well indexed; consequently, while there should have been compliance with our rule requiring reference to the record pagination in the brief of appellant, failure to do so will not preclude our consideration of the enumerated errors when the inconvenience occasioned is insubstantial. Rainey v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, 114 Ga.App. 333, 151 S.E.2d 534; Cohen v. Garland, 119 Ga.App. 333, 334(1b), 167 S.E.2d 599.
2. Uninsured motorist coverage was not included in the policy when issued and no premium charge therefor was made. The policy was issued October 24, 1966 and delivered to the insured. The rejection of uninsured motorist coverage in a written application for a public liability insurance policy is sufficient to comply with the provision of Code Ann. § 56-407.1 providing that this coverage 'shall not be applicable where any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage in writing.'
'One who signs an application for insurance in a completed state (in absence of fraud...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parris & Son, Inc. v. Campbell, s. 47512
...Ga.App. 5(2), 192 S.E. 90; Hatfield v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 102 Ga.App. 630, 632, 116 S.E.2d 900; American Liberty Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 120 Ga.App. 1(2), 169 S.E.2d 342. It appears that the plaintiff received the policy in the mail and kept it without opening the envelope for some......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Perry
...107 Ga.App. 348(1), 130 S.E.2d 144; Jessup v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 117 Ga.App. 389(1), 160 S.E.2d 612; American Liberty Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 120 Ga.App. 1(2), 169 S.E.2d 342; Massey v. Cotton States Life Ins. Co., 70 Ga. 794; Shedden v. Heard, 110 Ga. 461(2), 35 S.E. 707; Heard v. Shedde......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bates
...of Jones would work an inequitable hardship upon the insurance industry. First, as Judge Evans noted, American Liberty Insurance Company v. Sanders, 120 Ga.App. 1, 169 S.E.2d 342 (1969), upon which State Farm claims it relied in using an application with only one signature line, construed a......
-
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Sweat
...on the bottom of an insurance application was sufficient rejection "in writing" of an optional coverage. American Liberty Insurance Co. v. Sanders, 120 Ga.App. 1, 169 S.E.2d 342 (1969). At issue in American Liberty, however, was a different statute, Ga.Code Ann. § 56-407.1(a)(3), which requ......
-
Insurance - Stephen M. Schatz, Stephen L. Cotter, and Bradley S. Wolff
...submission was made for the purpose ofinducing Ace American to issue SABIC a policy.235 227. Id. at *1. 228. Id. 229. Id. 230. Id. 231. 120 Ga. App. 1, 169 S.E.2d 342 (1969). 232. Townsend, 2011 WL 3348378, at *3. 233. Id. 234. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 235. Id. Additionally, ......