Howard v. American Southern Ins. Co., 56480
Decision Date | 07 November 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 56480,56480 |
Citation | 148 Ga.App. 25,251 S.E.2d 7 |
Parties | HOWARD v. AMERICAN SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William M. Phillips, Ringgold, for appellant.
Joe B. Tucker, Ringgold, for appellees.
The plaintiff filed suit to recover for the physical damage to his vehicle under the terms of an automobile policy.
Both sides moved for summary judgment. The defendants' motion was granted and plaintiff's was denied.
The following facts are not controverted. The policy issued to plaintiff was for the period of October 12, 1976 to October 12, 1977 for an annual premium of $627, which plaintiff financed on a monthly time payment plan. Plaintiff paid his monthly payment under this plan which was due on December 12, 1976. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff was advised by defendants that his premium would be increased by $254 per year for the reason that plaintiff on his application had denied any traffic violations during the preceding 36 months whereas the plaintiff's State of Georgia driving record showed to the contrary. Plaintiff did not agree to pay this additional premium. On December 22, 1976, a notice of cancellation was sent to plaintiff stating that the policy was canceled effective January 3, 1977, giving as the reason "Nonpayment of additional premium." Plaintiff on January 6, 1977, was involved in an accident resulting in a total loss to his car. Held :
1. Defendants' sole basis for canceling the policy was the nonpayment of the additional premium. Our statute authorizes cancellation when the insured fails to discharge "when due any of his obligations in connection with the payment of premiums on such policy or any installment thereof, or the renewal thereof, whether payable directly to the insurer or indirectly under any premium finance plan or extension of credit; . . ." Code § 56-2430.1(A)(1). The increase in premium was a material modification of the policy terms to which plaintiff did not agree and it was not supported by any consideration, both of which would be necessary to effect a valid modification of the insurance contract. Broome v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 119 Ga.App. 443, 167 S.E.2d 607; Ga. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ragan, 122 Ga.App. 56, 176 S.E.2d 230. The plaintiff under the time payment plan was current at the time of cancellation on payment of the agreed premium. The cancellation for the reason cited in the notice was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gary Hotel Courts, Inc. v. Perry, 56479
... ... Holloman v. Henry Grady Hotel Co., 42 Ga.App. 347, 348, 156 S.E. 275; Hotel ... ...
-
Smith v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co.
...Guaranty Ins. Co., 168 Ga.App. 565, 309 S.E.2d 805 (1983). The appellant's reliance upon such cases as Howard v. American Southern Ins. Co., 148 Ga.App. 25, 251 S.E.2d 7 (1978), and Penn. Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Person, 164 Ga.App. 488, 297 S.E.2d 80 (1982), is misplaced, since in those ......
-
McDonald v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Neither side has referred us to an Arkansas case that decides this precise point, but appellant cites Howard v. American Southern Ins. Co., 148 Ga.App. 25, 251 S.E.2d 7 (1978). In that case the appellant had been issued a policy giving coverage for one year at a stated premium to be paid in......
-
Anderson v. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Ins. Co.
...had no ground to cancel the contract, and judgment was thus properly awarded to the respondent. See Howard v. American Southern Insurance Company, 148 Ga.App. 25, 251 S.E.2d 7 (1978). Judgment LITTLEJOHN, NESS, GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., concur. ...