Burks v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 30 November 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 13713.,13713. |
Citation | 192 F.2d 643 |
Parties | BURKS v. COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Wallace Miller, Jr., Macon, Ga., John J. Flynt, Jr., Griffin, Ga., for appellant.
S. Augustus Black, Columbia, S. C., R. Lanier Anderson, Jr., Macon, Ga., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH, and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
In the trial Court both the appellant, the plaintiff, and the appellee, the defendant moved for summary judgments. In a well considered opinion, set forth in the margin,1 the trial judge fully and fairly stated the material facts which had been developed by affidavits for the purpose of the respective motions of the parties, and, reviewing and applying the controlling law, sustained the motion of the defendant. Upon our consideration of the claims of error urged upon this appeal our conclusions both as to the controlling issues involved in Counts I, II and IV of the complaint, and as to the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Georgia which in point and principle control the decision of such issues adversely to the contentions of the appellant coincide in all material respects with those expressed by the trial court. There is consequently no necessity for any other or further exposition why the judgment of the trial Court upon these counts is correct. However, as to that portion of the opinion discussing and ruling upon the merits of the Third Count of the petition we refrain from any expression of approval or disapproval, since we find this to be unnecessary in the present case. The allegations of this count of the complaint, together with the facts, when considered in the light of the law already held properly applicable to the transaction now under review, are necessarily confined in material substance to the claim of negligence in failing to act with reasonable promptness in either accepting or rejecting the application and in notifying the plaintiff of its action. While we fully recognize and give obedience to the fundamental principle that the existence of negligence and the determination of what constitutes a "reasonable time" are generally for determination as questions of fact upon consideration of pertinent circumstances, we are nevertheless of the firm opinion that under the precise facts and circumstances of this case a finding of negligence based upon reasonable delay would not be legally supportable. The minds of reasonable men could not differ on these facts. We are therefore not required to determine, or to express it more accurately, declare, the law of Georgia which would be applicable if a factual basis for such finding existed. The Georgia Courts do not appear to have passed upon the question and, since we find at the beginning of our consideration of it the existence of an insurmountable bar to any recovery by the complainant a discussion of the legal merits, otherwise, of this claim could be only academic. We therefore refrain and, setting forth the trial Court's opinion upon this feature of the case only for the purpose of completeness of quotation, place our decision of affirmance of the ruling of the trial Court upon the third count of the complaint upon the grounds which we have stated.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lasma Corp. v. Monarch Ins. Co. of Ohio
...or opinon that he was in sound health. Burks v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 98 F.Supp. 140 (M.D.Ga.1951), aff'd, 192 F.2d 643 (5th Cir.1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 915, 72 S.Ct. 648, 96 L.Ed. 1330 (1952); Hartford Live Stock Insurance Co. v. Phillips, 150 Colo. 349, 372 P.2d 74......
-
Wallace v. Wallace
...been done still remains to be determined. See Burks v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. , 98 F.Supp. 140, 144–145 (M.D. Ga.), aff'd , 192 F.2d 643 (5th Cir. 1951) ("To consider as done that which ought to have been done, the [c]ourt must determine what ought to have been done.").Moreover, "the......
-
Moll v. Mutual Health Ben. & Acc. Ass'n
...in support of its contentions, on the cases of Halbrook v. Atlas Life Ins. Co., Mo.App., 234 S.W.2d 628 and Burks v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 192 F.2d 643. These cases involve situations at variance with the facts of the instant case and are neither criterion nor authority......
-
Secretary of Defense
...Lauchli, 194 F.2d 787, 797, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 978; burks v. Colonial life and accident INS. Co., 98 f.1supp. 140, 143, affirmed 192 F.2d 643, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 915. In parallel situations involving tariffs duly published and filed with the interstate commerce commission, t......