National Auto. Ins. Co. v. Vaughn

• Decision Date: 01 October 1958
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 37268,37268,1
• Citation: National Auto. Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 106 S.E.2d 87, 98 Ga.App. 446 (Ga. App. 1958)
• Parties: NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. E. R. VAUGHN
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 87

106 S.E.2d 87

98 Ga.App. 446

NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. E. R. VAUGHN.

No. 37268.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Oct. 1, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court

The purchase price standing alone is not sufficient to establish the market value of an automobile, and since there was no other evidence which would authorize the jury to find the market value of the automobile at the time of the loss, the verdict for the plaintiff was not authroized; therefore, the court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

E. R. Vaughn sued National Automobile Insurance Company to recover the proceeds payable under a policy issued by the defendant and owed by the plaintiff. The insured automobile burned and was a complete loss.

It appeared on the trieal of the case that Peoples Loan & Finance Corporation was named in the policy as creditor beneficiary. At the time of the loss the plaintiff owed the finance company a balance of approximately $1,629.36 on the automobile. The defendant in accordance with the terms of the policy paid the finance company $1,000. The plaintiff contended that the market value of the automobile at the time of the loss was $1,740. The plaintiff also sought to recover penalties and attorney's fees for bad faith.

At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict which motion was denied. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and also for a new trial. The court denied both motions and the defendant excepts.

Ginsberg & Haskins, Sidney Haskins, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Wotton, Long & Jones, Durham Schane, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

FELTON, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff did not prove that the market value of the automobile at the time of the loss was greater than $1,000, the amount that had been paid to the creditor beneficiary named in the policy.

The plaintiff testified that the market value at the time of the loss was $1,740 but he stated that he arrived at such figure because that was the price he paid for the automobile and he thought it was worth what he paid for it.

The evidence did show that the loss occurred six or seven weeks after the plaintiff purchased the car for $1,740 and the plaintiff testified that he had driven it very little. Ordinarily, a jury is authorized to make a finding as to market value based on the purchase price, the recentness of the purchase, the care given between the purchase and the loss, etc. (Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Clements, 92 Ga.App. 451, 455, 88 S.E.2d 809);...