Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Jones, 46186
| Decision Date | 01 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46186,No. 2,46186,2 |
| Citation | 124 Ga.App. 761,186 S.E.2d 119 |
| Parties | NORFOLK & DEDHAM MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Katrina JONES et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the plaintiff is not faced with any dilemma with regard to the course it should pursue but seeks confirmation of what it has already done, declaratory judgment is not an available remedy.
Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company filed a complaint in Dougherty Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment and naming as defendants Katrina and Ralph Jones, Frank and Charles Cumbaa, and Ed Loosier. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff issued a home owners' policy containing personal liability coverage to the defendant Frank Cumbaa; that Charles Cumbaa is his minor son and was an insured within the terms of the policy; that Katrina Jones was accidentally injured by Charles Cumbaa and Ed Loosier; that the plaintiff was not notified of the occurrence until about 20 months thereafter; that civil action 5030 was filed in the Dougherty Superior Court by Ralph Jones, father of Katrina Jones, against the defendants Ed Loosier and Charles Cumbaa; that the plaintiff declined to defend the action on the ground that Frank and Charles Cumbaa had violated the terms of the insurance policy by failing to give plaintiff written notice of the occurrence as soon as practical as required by the policy; that a verdict was rendered in favor of Ralph Jones in civil action 5030.
The complaint further alleged that Frank Cumbaa and Charles Cumbaa filed an action (5472) against the plaintiff on the insurance policy seeking to recover the amount of judgment in civil action 5030; that civil action 5472 is still pending in Dougherty Superior Court; that the principal defense in that action is a failure of Frank and Charles Cumbaa to give the plaintiff written notice required by the policy.
The complaint then set out that civil action 5960 was filed in the Dougherty Superior Court by Katrina Jones against Ed Loosier and Charles Cumbaa for personal injuries; that Charles Cumbaa filed a third-party complaint in civil action 5960, naming the instant plaintiff a third-party defendant and seeking judgment against it; that the instant plaintiff has filed a third-party answer and motions to dismiss the third-party complaint; that one of the principal defenses in the third-party answer and motion is based on a denial of coverage for the failure of Frank and Charles Cumbaa to give written notice required by the policy; that the instant defendants are plaintiffs in civil action 5472 and civil action 5960 in which the same issues were involved, but an adjudication in one would not be res judicata in the other; that an actual justicable controversy exists between the parties; that the court should take jurisdiction of the controversy and declare the rights, liabilities and other legal relations of the parties so that the plaintiff might be afforded relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to its rights, status and future conduct and to the end that plaintiff may know whether the insurance policy imposes a duty upon it affording liability coverage. The prayers were for a temporary injunction and for a judgment declaring whether or not liability coverage is afforded with regard to the occurrence and the actions pending in the Dougherty Superior Court. The various defendants filed answers to the complaint. Both the plaintiff and the defendants filed motions for summary judgments which were denied by the trial judge....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Atlanta Cas. Co.
...712, 470 S.E.2d 659 (1996). Declaratory judgment cannot confirm actions already taken by the insurer. Norfolk &c. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 124 Ga.App. 761, 763-764(2), 186 S.E.2d 119 (1971). Since the judgment of default has already been entered, the setting aside of the judgment denied, and defe......
-
Wilder v. Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York, A01A1410.
...judgment is not an appropriate remedy, because there no longer exists uncertainty of action. Norfolk &c. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 124 Ga.App. 761, 763-764(2), 186 S.E.2d 119 (1971). Thus, "declaratory judgment is not available where a judgment cannot guide and protect the petitioner with regard t......
-
Cotton v. Bank South, N.A.
...of taking any future undirected action, which action without direction would jeopardize its interest." Norfolk, etc., Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Jones, 124 Ga.App. 761, 763(2), 186 S.E.2d 119. In this instance, the record reveals that appellee bank consistently has taken a firm position that the......
-
Labmd, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co.
...a declaratory judgment action cannot simply confirm actions already taken by an insurer, see Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Jones, 124 Ga.App. 761, 764(2), 186 S.E.2d 119 (1971), and, consequently, a declaratory judgment action regarding an insurer's duty to defend can be rendered m......