Huggins v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
Decision Date | 25 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 57998,57998 |
Citation | 151 Ga.App. 377,259 S.E.2d 742 |
Parties | HUGGINS et al. v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Luke F. Gore, Peter M. Blackford, Austell, for appellants.
Daryll Love, Anthony L. Cochran, Atlanta, for appellees.
Plaintiff-employee and his wife brought suit against defendants-Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. and Standard Fire Insurance Co. (the insurers of plaintiff's employer), alleging that defendants' negligent inspection of the machinery of their insured (plaintiff's employer) was the proximate cause of plaintiff-employee's job-related injury. Plaintiffs take this appeal from the trial court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
St. Paul Fire etc. Ins. Co. v. Davidson, 148 Ga.App. 82(2), 251 S.E.2d 32. However, the injured party's reliance upon the insurers to Id., p. 84, 251 S.E.2d p. 33.
Pretermitting defendants' negligence, since the record is devoid of any evidence of plaintiff-employee's reliance upon the insurers' safety inspections, the court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Contrary to appellant-employee's contentions, his affidavit does not support his assertion of reliance. In his affidavit, answers to interrogatories, and in his deposition, plaintiff merely avers his awareness of the periodic tours made by insurance representatives. It is clear that he was neither aware of the true function nor the practical consequences of such inspections. Indeed, in his deposition appellant-employee admitted having no personal knowledge of the inspections. He stated that he was not aware of the inspectors' recommendations; that he had never spoken to any inspectors concerning plant equipment; and that he had never seen any notes or reports relating to the inspections. Appellant, by his own words, thus negates the existence of his reliance.
The fact that, following the accident, appellant-employee wondered why certain safety mechanisms had not been proposed by the inspectors does not support his contention that prior to the accident he relied upon the insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.
...the only "employee reliance" case that we have discovered would seem to support such a conclusion. See Huggins v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 151 Ga.App. 377, 259 S.E.2d 742 (1979), rev'd on other grounds, 245 Ga. 248, 264 S.E.2d 191 (1980). However, Huggins is sufficiently distinguishable......
-
Huggins v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance companies and the Court of Appeals affirmed (Huggins v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 151 Ga.App. 377, 259 S.E.2d 742 (1979)), holding that Huggins could not recover on his tort claim against the insurance companies because he had not relie......
-
Huggins v. Standard Fire Ins. Co.
...in conducting safety inspections at the plant. This is the second appeal of the case to this court. In Huggins v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 151 Ga.App. 377, 259 S.E.2d 742 (1979), we affirmed a grant of summary judgment to the insurance company based on the absence of any evidence that Huggins......
-
Huggins v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...Atlanta, for appellees. SHULMAN, Judge. This court having entered on September 18, 1979, a judgment in the above-styled case, 151 Ga.App. 377, 259 S.E.2d 742, affirming the judgment of the trial court; and the judgment of this court having been reversed on certiorari by the Supreme Court in......