Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Davalos
| Decision Date | 25 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 36523,36523 |
| Citation | 272 S.E.2d 702,246 Ga. 746 |
| Parties | CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. DAVALOS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Eugene A. Epting, Athens, for appellants.
Peter Rice, Jr., David G. Kopp, James L. Cline, Jr., Greensboro, for appellees.
This is a motor vehicle collision suit filed against a motor common carrier and its insurer under Code Ann. § 68-612. We granted certiorari to determine whether the plaintiffs should have been allowed, over objection of the defendants, to present to the jury evidence of the limits of the insurance policy. We conclude that the defendants' objection should have been sustained.
It is true that in a suit against a common carrier and its insurer under § 68-612, the plaintiff cannot recover from the insurer any more than the liability fixed by its contract and the statute, and, therefore, the plaintiff must prove the policy limits in order to sustain a judgment against the insurer. Barber v. Canal Ins. Co., 119 Ga.App. 738, 168 S.E.2d 868 (1969); St. Paul Fire etc. Ins. Co. v. Fleet Transport Co., 116 Ga.App. 606, 158 S.E.2d 476 (1967); La Hatte v. Walton, 53 Ga.App. 6, 184 S.E. 742 (1936). However, as noted in GATES V. DEWITT, 528 F.2D 405, 411(4) (5TH CIR. 1976)1, this does not necessarily authorize the plaintiff to submit before the jury the entire policy "lock, stock and last comma ..." Since the § 68-612 plaintiff can prove the limits of coverage so as to sustain a judgment against the insurer without submitting the policy limits to the jury, 2 and since submission of the policy limits to the jury tends to prejudice the defendants 3, we conclude that the defendants' objection to this should have been sustained.
In Powell v. Manning, 242 Ga. 778, 251 S.E.2d 522 (1979), we held that where the defendant in an automobile collision suit alleges that he has an exemption from liability under our no-fault insurance law, Code Ann. § 56-3410b(a), the defendant should be able to prove that he is an insured person entitled to claim this exemption without having the fact or amount of insurance coverage submitted to the jury. In a § 68-612 suit, it is a consequence of the law and the business conducted by the insured that the fact of insurance coverage is placed before the jury. Hogan v. Williams, 193 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1951). However, as previously stated, this does not necessitate submission of the policy limits to the jury. The basis for the holding in Powell v. Manning, supra, is that unless it is necessary, the amount of insurance coverage should not be placed before the jury. It was not necessary to place the amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Crump
...OCGA § 46-7-12; St. Paul Fire, etc., Co. v. Fleet Transport Co., 116 Ga.App. 606, 158 S.E.2d 476 (1967); Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Davalos, 246 Ga. 746, 272 S.E.2d 702 (1980). Since 1963, with the passage of the Georgia Uninsured Motorist Act, Ga. L.1963, p. 588, OCGA § 33-7- 11(d), the ins......
-
Pruitt v. Tyler
...See generally Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Davalos, 154 Ga.App. 776, 777(1), 269 S.E.2d 897 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 246 Ga. 746, 272 S.E.2d 702 (1980). Compare Griffin v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 159 Ga.App. 598, 284 S.E.2d 101 (1981); Logan v. Smith, 165 Ga.App. 66, 299 S.E.2d 1......
-
Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Jernigan
...the policy would be admissible so long as the limits of coverage were not revealed to the jury. See Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Davalos, 246 Ga. 746, 272 S.E.2d 702 (1980) (construing OCGA § 46-7-12 (Code Ann. § 18-101)). Accordingly, under the facts of this case, the policy was properly admi......
- Wilson v. Reed
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby, Jason Crawford, and Teresa T. Abell
...Under such circumstances, no evidence of the amount of insurance available may be introduced. See Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Davalos, 246 Ga. 746, 747, 272 S.E.2d 702, 703 (1980). 130. 228 Ga. App. at 356-57, 492 S.E.2d at 9-10. 131. Id. at 359, 492 S.E.2d at 11-12 (Banke, J., dissenting). 1......
-
The Georgia Direct Action Statute
...496 S.E.2d 705 (1998). 38. Ashley v. Goss Bros. Trucking, 269 Ga. 449, 450, 499 S.E.2d 638 (1998). 39. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Davalos 246 Ga. 746, 747, 272 S.E.2d 702 (1980). 40. Gates v. DeWitt, Inc., 528 F.2d 405, 412 (1976), opinion corrected 532 F.2d 1052 (1976). 41. Progressive Pref......