Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. of Hammond v. Norris, 22156
| Decision Date | 10 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 22156,22156 |
| Citation | 219 Ga. 573,134 S.E.2d 774 |
| Parties | GUARANTEE RESERVE LIFE INS. CO. OF HAMMOND v. Marie J. NORRIS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
J. Cecil & E. Purnell Davis, Warrenton, Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
Randall Evans, Jr., Kenneth E. Goolsby, Thomson, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
On February 23, 1962, Mrs. Marie J. Norris filed a suit in the Superior Court of Warren County against Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Company of Hammond, Indiana. Her petition alleges that she purchased a policy of insurance from the defendant on September 27, 1961, which obligated it to pay hospital and surgical expenses incurred by her. She was hospitalized at University Hospital, Augusta, Georgia, from December 3 to December 10, 1961, during which period she incurred hospital and surgical expenses of $548 which the defendant refused to pay. Paragraph 5 of her petition alleges that she promptly notified the defendant of the expenses so incurred by her and that she complied with the terms of her policy as to proof of loss, claim and demand. Paragraph 8 alleges that more than 60 days elapsed between the date she made a demand on the defendant for payment of the hospital and surgical expenses incurred by her and the date of filing her suit therefor. Her petition also alleges that it had been necessary for her to employ counsel to collect the hospital and surgical expenses incurred by her. She prayed for a judgment covering such expenses and also for an amount equal to 25% of her claim as damages for nonpayment thereof, plus $9,000 as reasonable attorney's fees. The defendant answered her petition and admitted that she did purchase a policy of liability insurance from it on the date alleged in her petition; that she did incur hospital and surgical expenses of $548 during the period stated in her petition; and that she made a demand on it for payment of such expenses but expressly denied that such demand was made on it 60 days before she filed her suit therefor. Its answer also avers that the expenses sued for were not covered by the policy it sold her and for that reason she was not entitled to a judgment against it for any amount. It subsequently amended its answer and attached to it, as an exhibit, a copy of the proof of loss which the plaintiff filed with it on December 16, 1961. The defendant again amended its answer and admitted that the policy it sold to the plaintiff covered the expenses sued for by her and that it was obligated by such policy to pay those expenses. On the trial and after the introduction of evidence closed, the defendant moved the court to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the $548 sued for and against the plaintiff for the damages and the attorney's fees she sought to recover on the ground that the evidence as to damages and attorney's fees demanded a finding by the jury that 60 days did not elapse between the date the plaintiff demanded payment of the expenses incurred by her for hospitalization and surgical service and the filing of her suit therefor. Its motion was overruled, and the jury on October 1, 1962, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $548 principal, 7% interest, 25% penalty and $3,000 attorney's fees. The defendant in due time moved for a judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict on the same ground which it had urged for a directed verdict in its favor respecting damages and attorney's fees and it also filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds which it later amended by adding two special grounds complaining of specified portions of the charge. Its motions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Star Photo Finishing Co., s. 44877
...against the company could stand, for a condition precedent to a fixing of liability has not been met. Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. of Hammond v. Norris, 219 Ga. 573, 575, 134 S.E.2d 774; Styles v. American Home Ins. Co., 146 Ga. 92, 90 S.E. 718; Bank of Ball Ground v. National Surety Co.......
-
Creasy v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
...at least sixty days. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avery, 165 Ga.App. 703, 703, 302 S.E.2d 605 (1983); Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Norris, 219 Ga. 573, 575, 134 S.E.2d 774 (1964). The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated the absence of any “genuine dispute as to any material fa......
-
National Cas. Co. v. Dixon, 42310
...Ga.App. 746(3), 125 S.E.2d 709. 2. A proof of loss does not, standing alone, constitute a demand for payment. Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Norris, 219 Ga. 573, 134 S.E.2d 774, conformed to 109 Ga.App. 21, 134 S.E.2d 880; George Washington Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 90 Ga.App. 459, 83 S.E......
-
Stedman v. Cotton States Ins. Co.
...simply acknowledges receiving a notice of claim, which is not the same as a demand for payment. See Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. &c. v. Norris, 219 Ga. 573, 575, 134 S.E.2d 774 (1964) (a proof of loss standing alone is not a demand for Finally, we find no merit in Stedman's waiver argume......