Brazil v. Government Employees Ins. Co., No. A90A2363
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | CARLEY; SOGNIER |
| Citation | 199 Ga.App. 343,404 S.E.2d 807 |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A2363 |
| Parties | BRAZIL v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Page 807
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY.
Rehearing Denied March 27, 1991.
Certiorari Denied June 7, 1991.
Page 808
[199 Ga.App. 345] Kenneth C. Pollock, Atlanta, for appellant.
Haas, Bridges & Kane, Alvin L. Bridges, Jr., Stephen R. Kane, Atlanta, for appellee.
[199 Ga.App. 343] CARLEY, Judge.
Appellant-plaintiff brought suit, seeking to recover no-fault benefits under a policy that had been issued to him by appellee-defendant. Appellee answered and, after discovery, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The trial court denied appellant's motion and granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. It is from that order that appellant brings this appeal.
1. Appellant was injured in September of 1985 and, under the terms of his policy, he was obligated to give appellee notice "[a]s soon as possible...." However, no notice whatsoever was given to appellee until November of 1988. Appellant does not contend that, notwithstanding this 38-month delay, he satisfied his obligation to give notice to appellee "[a]s soon as possible...." The only contention is that appellee waived its right to rely upon the 38-month delay as a defense to appellant's action for no-fault benefits.
There is evidence that, after it finally received notice from appellant, appellee did not immediately and definitively deny coverage on the basis of the 38-month delay but, instead, acknowledged receipt of his untimely notice, furnished him with claim forms and undertook an investigation before it ultimately denied coverage on that basis. However, pursuant to OCGA § 33-24-40, such evidence of a delay in asserting the defense pending a full and complete investigation of appellant's claim would not be material to the issue of appellee's waiver of its defensive reliance upon the 38-month delay. See generally Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Star Photo Finishing Co., 120 Ga.App. 697, 698(2), 172 S.E.2d 159 (1969). What would be material to the waiver issue is evidence that, after it finally received notice from appellant, appellee otherwise expressly or impliedly took a position indicative of its intent not to enforce satisfaction of the timely notice requirement. See State Farm Ins. Co. v. Wright, 137 Ga.App. 819, 224 S.E.2d 796 (1976) (express understanding that pre-existing policy violations would be waived in consideration of opening default); Browder v. [199 Ga.App. 344]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Ga., A17A0624
...did not result in waiver or estoppel; timing of knowledge of misrepresentation not discussed); Brazil v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co., 199 Ga. App. 343, 344 (1), 404 S.E.2d 807 (1991) (holding insurer entitled to investigate before denying claim).18 The estoppel cases cited by the dissent do no......
-
Hoover v. Maxum Indem. Co., Nos. S11G1681
...declaratory judgment action. Richmond, 140 Ga.App. at 217, 231 S.E.2d 245. The dissent's reliance on Brazil v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 199 Ga.App. 343, 344(2), 404 S.E.2d 807 (1991) is also inapposite. The facts in the present matter are readily distinguishable from the facts in Brazil. I......
-
Debord v. Proples Ben. Life Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-2884-TCB.
...satisfaction of the timely notice requirement" would be enough to waive the requirement. Brazil v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 199 Ga.App. 343, 343, 404 S.E.2d 807, 808 DeBord points to three separate letters from Peoples Benefit between August and December 2003 as evidence that Peoples ......
-
Hoover v. Maxum Indem. Co..Maxum Indem. Co. v. Hoover., Nos. A11A0284
...or impliedly took a position indicative of its intent not to enforce satisfaction of the timely notice requirement. See Brazil v. Govt., 199 Ga.App. 343, 344(1), 404 S.E.2d 807 (1991). No such evidence exists in this case. The October 23 letter that Maxum issued upon being notified of the c......
-
Lee v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Ga., A17A0624
...did not result in waiver or estoppel; timing of knowledge of misrepresentation not discussed); Brazil v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co., 199 Ga. App. 343, 344 (1), 404 S.E.2d 807 (1991) (holding insurer entitled to investigate before denying claim).18 The estoppel cases cited by the dissent do no......
-
Hoover v. Maxum Indem. Co., Nos. S11G1681
...declaratory judgment action. Richmond, 140 Ga.App. at 217, 231 S.E.2d 245. The dissent's reliance on Brazil v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 199 Ga.App. 343, 344(2), 404 S.E.2d 807 (1991) is also inapposite. The facts in the present matter are readily distinguishable from the facts in Brazil. I......
-
Debord v. Proples Ben. Life Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-2884-TCB.
...satisfaction of the timely notice requirement" would be enough to waive the requirement. Brazil v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 199 Ga.App. 343, 343, 404 S.E.2d 807, 808 DeBord points to three separate letters from Peoples Benefit between August and December 2003 as evidence that Peoples ......
-
Hoover v. Maxum Indem. Co..Maxum Indem. Co. v. Hoover., Nos. A11A0284
...or impliedly took a position indicative of its intent not to enforce satisfaction of the timely notice requirement. See Brazil v. Govt., 199 Ga.App. 343, 344(1), 404 S.E.2d 807 (1991). No such evidence exists in this case. The October 23 letter that Maxum issued upon being notified of the c......