Moses v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

Decision Date23 May 1988
Docket NumberNo. 76063,76063
Citation369 S.E.2d 541,187 Ga.App. 222
PartiesMOSES v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Page 541

369 S.E.2d 541
187 Ga.App. 222
MOSES

v.
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al.
No. 76063.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
May 23, 1988.

[187 Ga.App. 226] Scott Walters, Jr., East Point, for appellant.

[187 Ga.App. 227] Robert A. Barnaby II, Cheri D. McLeod, Atlanta, for appellees.

[187 Ga.App. 222] BIRDSONG, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from the order of the superior court judge granting appellees' motion for summary judgment.

Appellant worked for appellee insurance company for approximately two years, and appellee Huggins was his supervisor. During his employment with appellee insurance company, appellant sold a Prudential whole life, payroll deduction life insurance policy,

Page 542

referred to as "Pru-Pep," to a nursing home. Appellant quit work for appellee company and went to work as an independent agent for another insurance company.

Subsequently, the appellant contacted the nursing home administrator, informed her of his new employment, and advised her that another Prudential employee was the nursing home's new servicing agent. Appellant also informed the administrator that the Pru-Pep policy would still meet the needs of about 95 percent of the nursing home's employees, but that approximately five people would receive a better benefit from the insurance appellant was now selling. Appellant agreed to contact the administrator "the first part of next week" [187 Ga.App. 223] regarding the new insurance.

About two weeks later, appellee Huggins called the appellant and left the following message on the latter's telephone recorder: "Mark, this is Jeff. I just want to tell you not to screw around with the Prudential clients again, and especially like the trick you tried to pull on your Pru Pep case, or you are going to find your butt in court or your neck broken somewhere." Appellant returned appellee Huggins' call within the next fifteen minutes, and discussed the issue of contacting clients but did not discuss the threat and no mention was made of it. Appellant testified that he did not thereafter contact the clients as he did not want his neck broken, and that he quit selling life insurance that very day as a result of the phone call. Appellant also asserts that because of the phone call he was in "fear of his personal safety," and that he would look around when he went to his car for fear that someone might be there.

Appellant later met appellee Huggins in a bank and the two men shook hands and had a short conversation before appellant could get away. Another time appellant saw appellee Huggins in a restaurant and left before the latter saw him and started any trouble. Appellant admitted that at the time of his phone call he was five miles away from appellee Huggins. During his deposition, appellant allegedly testified in response to two questions that because appellee Huggins was five miles away there was nothing that Huggins could do to him; however, in a subsequent errata sheet, appellant attempted to modify the effect of his deposition responses to reflect that he did believe Huggins could do something to him. Appellant, in a Caveat of Defendant's Statement of Material Facts, subsequently asserted that his response to the two questions should have been that appellee Huggins "at the time of the conversation had no apparent present ability to injure [the appellant] and [the appellant] did not fear injury at that moment." Further, the appellant testified that he "was more frightened that [appellee Huggins] would have [the threat] done" by someone else, and that this was his "greatest fear." Although the appellant tacitly admitted to knowing of no instances where appellee Huggins had hired or used someone else to do anything to anybody else, he knew that "he does whatever it takes to get what he wants."

Appellant brought suit against appellee Prudential Insurance Company and its alleged agent, servant and employee appellee Huggins on the grounds that the conduct of the appellee Huggins in leaving the message on appellant's recording machine both constituted "a wilful infliction of emotional distress" and an "intrusion into [appellant's] reasonable expectations of privacy."

Appellant enumerates as error that the trial judge erred in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment, in that the words of appellee Huggins constituted an actionable wrong. Held:

[187 Ga.App. 224] It is a well-established general...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • Smith v. Akstein, No. 104CV1002WSDCCH.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • December 30, 2005
    ...intolerable in a civilized community.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Moses v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 187 Ga.App. 222, 224, 369 S.E.2d 541 (1988); Sossenko v. Michelin Tire Corp., 172 Ga.App. 771, 772, 324 S.E.2d 593 (1984); Comment d § 46(1) of the Rest......
  • Southern General Ins. Co. v. Holt
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • July 16, 1991
    ...the conduct will not rise to the requisite level of outrageousness and egregiousness. [Cits.]" Moses v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 187 Ga.App. 222, 225, 369 S.E.2d 541 (1988). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Holt, see gordon, supra 193 Ga.App. at 518(1), 388 S.E.2d 36......
  • Pierri v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • October 18, 2005
    ...of humiliation, embarrassment, fright or extreme outrage as to cause severe emotional distress." Moses v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 187 Ga.App. 222, 369 S.E.2d 541, 543 (1988) (citing Bridges v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc., 176 Ga.App. 227, 335 S.E.2d 445 (1985); Thomas v. Ronald A. Edwards ......
  • Kimsey v. Akstein, 104CV1001WSDCCH.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • December 30, 2005
    ...intolerable in a civilized community.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Moses v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 187 Ga.App. 222, 224, 369 S.E.2d 541 (1988); Sossenko v. Michelin Tire Corp., 172 Ga.App. 771, 772, 324 S.E.2d 593 (1984); Comment d § 46(1) of the Rest......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • More Than Money: Emotional Distress Damages in Bankruptcy Proceedings
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 66-4, June 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...Novotny, 657 So. 2d at 1212.158. St. Mary's Hosp., 205 Ga. App. at 123, 421 S.E.2d at 734 (quoting Moses v. Prudential Ins. Co., 187 Ga. App. 222, 225, 369 S.E.2d 541, 544 (1988)).159. Jarrard, 242 Ga. App. at 59-60, 529 S.E.2d at 147-48; see Fambrough, 706 So. 2d at 741.160. A plaintiff ma......
  • Sexual Harassment Claims Under Georgia Law
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Bar Journal No. 6-1, August 2000
    • Invalid date
    ...381 S.E.2d at 306. 28. Hendrix, 207 Ga. App. at 395, 428 S.E.2d at 93. 29. Moses v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 187 Ga. App. 222, 225, 369 S.E.2d 541, 544 30. Id. See also Odem, 235 Ga. App. at 655-56, 510 S.E.2d at 326. 31. Coleman, 191 Ga. App. at 169, 381 S.E.2d at 306. 32. Id. 33. Id. 3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT