International Indem. Co. v. Enfinger, s. 72824

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
• Writing for the Court: BENHAM; BEASLEY
• Citation: 181 Ga.App. 420,352 S.E.2d 575
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. ENFINGER. ENFINGER v. INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY CO. ODOM v. INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY.
• Docket Number: Nos. 72824,72825 and 73010,s. 72824
• Decision Date: 01 December 1986

Page 575

352 S.E.2d 575 181 Ga.App. 420 INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY
v.
ENFINGER.
ENFINGER
v.
INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY CO.
ODOM
v.
INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY. Nos. 72824, 72825 and 73010. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Dec. 1, 1986.
Rehearings Denied Dec. 19, 1986.
Certiorari Granted Feb. 16, 1987.

[181 Ga.App. 422] Michael L. Wetzel, Decatur, for Intern.

Ben Kirbo, Bainbridge, for Enfinger.

Robert P. Wildau, Atlanta, for Odom.

[181 Ga.App. 420] BENHAM, Judge.

These appeals have been combined for appellate consideration since the issues are related and have been jointly considered in previous appearances before the appellate courts of this state. The factual history of these cases can be found in International Indem. Co. v. Enfinger, 170 Ga.App. 443, 317 S.E.2d 841 (1984), rev'd. 253 Ga. 185, 317 S.E.2d 816 (1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1018, 105 S.Ct. 443, 83 L.Ed.2d 360 (1984), on remand 174 Ga.App. 268, 329 S.E.2d 575 (1985); and International Indem. Co. v. Odom, 170 Ga.App. 447, 317 S.E.2d 844 (1984), rev'd. 253 Ga. 210, 317 S.E.2d 833 (1984), on remand, 174 Ga.App. 6, 329 S.E.2d 307 (1985). The facts are sufficiently set out in prior proceedings and can be consulted for background information.

The main appeal in Case No. 72824 arose out of the trial court's denial of International Indemnity Company's ("IIC") motion

Page 576

to preclude prejudgment interest. The cross-appeal in Case No. 72825 and the appeal in Case No. 73010 arose out of the trial court's granting of summary judgment to IIC on the issue of bad faith penalties, attorney fees and interest.

1. The pivotal issue that concerns all parties is whether the respective trial courts erred in granting summary judgment to appellee/IIC on the issue of bad faith penalties, attorney fees, and interest.

While this issue was pending before this division, another divison of this court issued a decision in International Indem. Co. v. Coachman, 181 Ga.App. 82, 351 S.E.2d 224 (1986), which concerned the same issue. Finding abounding wisdom, reason, and precedent in International Indem. Co. v. Coachman, we have decided to follow it unreservedly and to quote from it liberally. IIC contended there, as it does here, that since it filed a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court under the McFather rule (Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. McFather, 251 Ga. 739(3), 309 S.E.2d 799 (1983)), no final determination was made until the writ was denied. Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying the claim for bad faith penalties. As in Coachman, we reject this argument and quote from that opinion: [181 Ga.App. 421] "The relevant question ......