Firemen's Ins. Co v. Oliver

• Decision Date: 20 March 1936
• Docket Number: No. 10895.,10895.
• Citation: Firemen's Ins. Co v. Oliver, 184 S.E. 858, 182 Ga. 212 (Ga. 1936)
• Parties: FIREMEN'S INS. CO. v. OLIVER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

182 Ga. 212

184 S.E. 858

FIREMEN'S INS. CO.

v.OLIVER.

No. 10895.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 20, 1936.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Certified question from the Court of Appeals.

Suit by H. T. Oliver, for use, etc., against the Firemen's Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brought error to the Court of Appeals, which certified a question.

Question answered.

The Court of Appeals (in case No. 24449) certified the following question: "An insurance policy was issued by an insurance company covering loss or damage to A's property 'by fire, lightning, windstorm, cyclones, and tornadoes.' On the 4th day of March, 1927, while the policy was in force, the property described in the policy was damaged by a 'windstorm, cyclone, or tornado.' On May 27, 1927, in accordance with the provisions of the policy that 'proofs of loss' be filed with the company within 60 days after the loss occurred, A filed 'proof of loss' claiming damage to the property in the total sum of $620. The policy further provided that 'the sum for which this company is liable pursuant to this policy shall be payable sixty days after due notice, ascertainment, estimate, and satisfactory proof of the loss have been received by this company in accordance with the terms of the policy.' The insurance company disputed the amount of the loss, and offered $32.50 as a settlement of the claim. Suit on the policy was filed by A against the insurance company, on July 26, 1927. Upon the last trial of the case, in 1934, and which is the subject of the writ of error in this court, the jury found for A in the sum originally claimed in his 'proof of loss, ' to wit, $620, and also 'interest at 7% from day of suit.' Under the facts stated above, was interest recoverable, under the terms of the policy, on the $620, on the theory that such amount became a 'liquidated demand' 60 days after proper notice to the insurance company? See, in this connection, Civil Code (1910), § 3434; Ins. Co. of North America v. Folds, 42 Ga. App. 306, 307 (4), 155 S.E. 782; Sentinel Fire Ins. Co. v. McRoberts, 50 Ga.App. 732, 179 S.E. 256; Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc. v. Bainbridgc Grocery Co., 16 Ga. App. 432, 85 S.E. 622; Civil Code (1910), § 2549; Love v. National Liberty Ins. Co., 157 Ga. 259, 121 S.E. 648; Hardy v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 166 Mass. 210, 44 N.E. 209, 33 L.R.A. 241, 55 Am.St.Rep. 395; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bernard, 99 Okl. 44, 221 P. 1011; Gray v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 125 Ill. App. 370 (7); 7 Cooky's Briefs on Ins. (2d Ed.) 6578; Council v. Hixon, 11 Ga.App. 818, 827, 76 S.E. 603; Bartee v. Andrews, 18 Ga. 407."

Smith, Smith & Bloodworth, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

W. N. Oliver, H. T. Oliver, and Wheeler & Kenyon, all of Gainesville, for defendant in...