Pennsylvania Cas. Co. v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 09 June 1908
• Citation: 61 S.E. 829,130 Ga. 766
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA CASUALTY CO. v. THOMPSON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

61 S.E. 829

130 Ga. 766

PENNSYLVANIA CASUALTY CO. v. THOMPSON.

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 9, 1908

Syllabus by the Court.

The writing relied on by the defendant to support its plea of accord and satisfaction was not merely a receipt for the sum therein named, but evidenced an unambiguous contract for a full release from any and all liability of the insurer to the insured by reason of the disability mentioned in such writing, and parol evidence was not admissible to contradict or vary its terms.

Error from Superior Court, Henry County; E. J. Reagan, Judge.

Action by B. F. Thompson against the Pennsylvania Casualty Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Gleaton & Gleaton, for plaintiff in error.

Brown & Brown, for defendant in error.

HOLDEN J.

The plaintiff brought suit on a health indemnity policy of insurance and obtained a verdict. To the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial, a bill of exceptions was filed by the defendant, making several assignments of error.

The policy of insurance sued on obligated the defendant, in the event the plaintiff, as a result of any one of certain enumerated diseases, was continuously and wholly disabled from the performance of all duties pertaining to his occupation, to pay him $10 per week during the continuance of such disability, for a period not exceeding 26 weeks. The plaintiff alleged that he became sick with typhoid fever, by reason of which illness and its effects he was totally disabled for a period covering the entire 26 weeks provided for in the policy, and that the company paid him $35, and refused to pay the balance, $225, to recover which he brought suit. The defendant pleaded an accord and satisfaction, in support of which plea it tendered in evidence the following writing: "Claim Voucher No. 2912. Scranton, Pa., Nov 10, 1903. Pennsylvania Casualty Company. Benjamin F Thompson, Luella, Ga. For claim under Ordinary Health No 70351, viz., arising from an illness beginning Sept. 23 1903, the adjustment and settlement thereof being for 3 4/7 weeks' total disability, at indemnity rate of $10 per week, $35.71. *** Weeks partial indemnity rate of $_____. Examined and found correct: Geo. T. Carr, Ch. Frank R. Stocker, Claim Agent. F. H. Kinsbury, Secretary. I, the above payee, in consideration of the said sum of thirty-five and 71/100 dollars to me paid by the Pennsylvania Casualty Company, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby release the said company forever from all, every, and further liability caused or arising from the above-named disability; the said payment being also a full settlement of all clams I may or might have against said company to this date arising under above-mentioned policy. Dec. 23, 1903. [Signature] B. F. Thompson. The above receipt must be dated and signed without any alternation by the person in whose name the voucher is drawn, or, if signed by any other person, the authority for so doing must be attached thereto. The County Savings & Trust Company of Scranton, Pa.: Pay the above amount, when the foregoing receipt is properly filled up and signed by the payee without alteration. [Signed] The Pennsylvania Casualty Company, by E. P. Kingsbury. Payable in New York exchange. $35.71. (Space for indorsement.) Pay to order of E. T. Moore. [Signed] B. F. Thompson. E. T. Moore. Paid 12-31-03."

Under the view we take of the case, it is only necessary to consider the assignment of error complaining of the action of the court in permitting the plaintiff, over the objection of the defendant, to give the following parol testimony with respect to the document above set out: "I told Mr Moore, when he brought me the receipt to sign, that I had a claim in for six weeks, and that I could not afford to sign it. He told me, 'As a matter of course, you are sick now, and you will be entitled to the whole claim,' and that this receipt is for $35 and is merely paying me $35 the company was paying me. He said the balance of the claim would come later. That statement induced me to sign the receipt. I did not intend the receipt for a settlement in full. I intended it for a settlement of $35, and the $35 covers three weeks." The plaintiff testified he could read. Had the writing introduced by the defendant been merely a receipt, it could have been denied or explained by parol. Civ. Code 1895, § 5208. Likewise, if, in addition to being a receipt, it had contained a contract in which there was any ambiguity, latent or patent, it would be governed by the ordinary rules of...