Fort & Turner Enterprises, Inc. v. Scrocca, A90A0453
| Decision Date | 27 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A0453,A90A0453 |
| Parties | FORT & TURNER ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. v. SCROCCA. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lane, O'Brien & Coburn, Eugene O'Brien, Stephen J. Caswell, for appellants.
Greene, Buckley, DeRieux & Jones, Cathleen M. Devlin, Daniel A. Angelo, Frank C. Schenck, Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Kent T. Stair, for appellee.
The appellants in this case are three separate corporations engaged in the business of selling insurance under the trade name, "Esquire Insurance Agency." The appellee obtained a verdict against them for actual and punitive damages and attorney fees on a claim that they had negligently and fraudulently failed to procure a policy of motor vehicle insurance for which she had paid a premium. This appeal is from the denial of their alternative motions for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The action originated with the filing of a complaint by "Esquire Insurance Agency" against three companies which are not parties to this appeal to recover approximately $40,000 in insurance premiums which had allegedly been paid by or on behalf of Esquire to secure motor vehicle insurance for various of its customers, but which had allegedly been wrongfully appropriated without such coverage being issued. As a defense to this action, two of the named defendants asserted that Esquire was not a legal entity but only a trade name with no power to sue. The complaint was thereafter amended to substitute as plaintiffs, in place of Esquire, the three appellants herein, to wit: Fort and Turner Enterprises, Inc., individually and d/b/a Esquire Insurance Agency; Emmett & Emmett Enterprises, Inc., individually and d/b/a Esquire Insurance Agency; and Esquire Insurance Agency, Inc., individually and d/b/a Esquire Insurance Agency.
Prior to the substitution of the three appellants as plaintiffs, the appellee, Arlene Scrocca, was granted permission to intervene in the action. She sought actual and punitive damages against Esquire or, in the alternative, against the three companies which Esquire had sued, based on allegations that she had paid Esquire a premium of $383 on May 17, 1985, to obtain physical damage coverage on her automobile; that she had been assured by Esquire, both on that date and on subsequent occasions, that such coverage was in effect; that on October 22, 1985, during the ostensible term of the policy, her automobile was damaged in an accident; and that after attempting to recover for this damage under her supposed policy she learned that no policy had in fact been issued. The case was tried before a jury, which awarded the appellee actual damages in the amount of $15,836, punitive damages in the amount of $100,000 and attorney fees in the amount of $17,312 on her claim against the appellants, while returning verdicts in favor of the original defendants on all the claims against them. Held:
1. While the appellants do not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to support an award of actual and punitive damages and attorney fees against Emmett & Emmett Enterprises, Inc., they contend that the evidence does not support an award of damages against Fort & Turner Enterprises, Inc., and Esquire Insurance Agency, Inc., because it was established without dispute that the appellee had not dealt with those companies but had dealt exclusively with Emmett & Emmett. However, it was further shown that all three appellants had the same majority shareholder, president, vice-president, secretary, and general manager; that they held themselves out to the public as being components of a single business operation, i.e., Esquire Insurance Agency; that they collectively entered into contracts for their common benefit under that name; and, of course, that they collectively initiated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The B & F Sys. Inc. v. Leblanc
...- Common Enterprise Georgia courts recognize a common business enterprise theory of liability. In Fort & Turner Enterprises, Inc. v. Scrocca, 195 Ga. App. 554, 555, 394 S.E.2d 364 (1990), the Georgia Court of Appeals determined that three corporations could be held jointly liable to the app......
-
Harrison v. Martin
...responded negatively. Consequently, Harrison waived any objection to the form of the jury's verdict. See Fort & Turner Enterprises v. Scrocca, 195 Ga.App. 554, 555(3), 394 S.E.2d 364. 3. In her third enumeration, Harrison contends the trial court erred in allowing Martin, Lawana Thompson La......
-
Speir v. Krieger
...the [Fulton Superior Court] Judgment did not remove the corporate status of any McFrugal entity." Compare Fort & Turner Enterprises v. Scrocca, 195 Ga.App. 554, 394 S.E.2d 364 (1990). We will not consider this new factual contention regarding a parent/subsidiary relationship, which apparent......
-
Strong v. Wachovia Bank of Georgia, N.A.
...by the jury, any deficiency thereto was waived. Potts v. State, 259 Ga. 96, 104(22), 376 S.E.2d 851; Fort, etc., Enterprises v. Scrocca, 195 Ga.App. 554, 555(2), 394 S.E.2d 364. Appellant's enumeration is without Judgment affirmed. BLACKBURN and RUFFIN, JJ., concur. ...