Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boney, 41838
| Decision Date | 05 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 41838,41838,3 |
| Citation | 113 Ga.App. 459,148 S.E.2d 457 |
| Parties | GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. F. H. BONEY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
F. H. Boney purchased a new Dodge automobile June 23, 1963, paying therefor $2,400, and insured it with Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. It turned over while being driven July 28, 1963, and Boney filed a proof of loss shortly thereafter, dated July 29, claiming $2,350 ($2,400 less $50 deductible). The company adjuster and claims representative entered into negotiations with him immediately and continued for some two months or more until it was apparent that a stalemate had been reached between them. In connection with the negotiations the insurer procured a proposal from the Dodge dealer at Rome to make all repairs, using new parts for replacing damaged ones, for restoring the car to its former condition, for $695, the dealer agreeing to 'guarantee' the job. A similar proposal was obtained from the Pontiac dealer for $700, and a third proposal was obtained from an independent garage for $1,200. Mr Boney secured statements from others engaged in automobile repairs, the dealer from whom he had purchased in Centerville, Alabama, and the Chevrolet dealer at Summerville, to the effect that the damage was not repairable.
Basing its conclusion on the proposals received that it was repairable, the insurer offered (a) to have the repairs made by the Dodge or the Pontiac dealer, and if unseen damage should appear to have that repaired also, or (b) to pay Mr. Boney the sum of $800. Mr. Boney refused both offers, insisting for some time upon replacement of the car with a new one, and later offering to settle the loss for $1,200. Thus a stalemate was reached, and September 25 the company wrote to Boney asking that he appoint an appraiser for an appraisal under policy provisions. Boney then informed the adjuster that he had disposed of the car, but declined to say to whom or where it could be located. However, on October 17 Mr. Boney notified the company that he had appointed A. A. Farrar (his attorney) as his appraiser. Finally the adjuster was able to locate the car in the hands of a doctor who had purchased and repaired it, and then informed Mr. Boney that in view of this development it would be useless to attempt an appraisal and the company would go no further with it. The offer of $800 was renewed, and declined.
After written demand for $1,400, this suit followed, but several months later, seeking recovery of $1400 actual damage, 25 percent penalty and $1,000 attorney's fees. A verdict was returned for $1,000 actual damage, $100 penalty and $300 attorney's fees. The amount of the attorney's fees was raised by the court, upon plaintiff's motion, to $750 under Code Ann. § 56-1206. An amended motion for new trial was overruled and plaintiff appeals, but in this court abandoned the general grounds and all others save those dealing with the award of penalty and attorney's fees.
Fullbright & Duffey, Harl C. Duffey, Jr., Rome, for appellant.
Archibald A. Farrar, Summerville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Where the verdict in a suit on an insurance policy is for substantially less than the amount claimed in the proof of loss and less than the amount demanded in the petition, no recovery for damages and attorney's fees is authorized. Southern Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turnley, 100 Ga. 296, 27 S.E. 975; Love v. National Liberty Ins. Co., 157 Ga. 259, 271, 121 S.E. 648; Queen Ins. Co. v. Peters, 10 Ga.App. 289 (4), 73 S.E. 536; Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 34 Ga.App. 555(6), 130 S.E. 378; Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Wright, 46 Ga.App. 537, 548(10), 167 S.E. 891; Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 52 Ga.App. 140, 142(3), 182 S.E. 677; Simonton Constr. Co. v. Pope, 95 Ga.App. 211, 217(3-c), 97 S.E.2d 590, reversed on other grounds in 213 Ga. 360, 99 S.E.2d 216; Crump v. Ojay Spread Co., 87 Ga.App. 250, 252(2), 73 S.E.2d 331; Royal Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 105 Ga.App. 746(3), 125 S.E.2d 709. Under these decisions the verdict is substantially less where the proof of loss was for $2,350, suit was brought to recover $1,400 and the verdict returned was for $1,000. Cf. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp.
...210 Ga. 250, 78 S.E.2d 790 (1953); Trader's Ins. Co. v. Mann, 118 Ga. 381, 45 S.E. 426 (1903).46 Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Boney, 113 Ga.App. 459, 148 S.E.2d 457 (1966); Broyles v. Johnson, 103 Ga.App. 102, 118 S.E.2d 734 (1961); Simonton Const. Co. v. Pope, 95 Ga.App. 211, 97 ......
-
Furr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., L-97-1202.
...demanded by the plaintiff. See Tyber v. Great Cent. Ins. Co. (C.A.6, 1978), 572 F.2d 562; see, also, Georgia Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boney (1966), 113 Ga.App. 459, 148 S.E.2d 457. Initially, we note that there is no similar Ohio rule that states that a verdict for less than a plaintiff's......
-
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. C & S Realty Co.
...requested in damages." University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518, 548, supra; Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Boney, 113 Ga.App. 459(1), 148 S.E.2d 457 (1966); Broyles v. Johnson, 103 Ga.App. 102(5), 118 S.E.2d 734 (1961); Simonton Construction Co. v. Pope, 95 ......
-
Interstate Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Brown
...465(3), 136 S.E.2d 525. '3. If there was 'reasonable and probable cause' for denying plaintiff's claim. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boney, 113 Ga.App. 459(3), 148 S.E.2d 457. '4. If there is a bona fide dispute between claimant and his insurer as to the amount of the loss. Ga. Farm Bur......
-
Bad Faith in Insurance Claim Handling in Georgia, an Overview and Update
...v. Biddy Lumber Company, 114 Ga. App. 358, 151 S.E.2d 466 (1966). See also Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Boney, 113 Ga. App. 459, 460, 148 S.E.2d 457, 460 (1966) there is a reasonable basis for doing so, an insurer is entitled to maintain its position as to the amount of i......