Posey v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 42670
| Decision Date | 04 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 42670,No. 2,42670,2 |
| Parties | Vassie POSEY v. GULF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Marson G. Dunaway, Jr., Rockmart, for appellant.
Wayne W. Gammon, Cedartown, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Vassie Posey brought this suit to recover as the alleged beneficiary of a life insurance contract. The amended petition shows that on April 10, 1964, W. G. Newbern made application in writing to defendant for a policy of group life insurance covering the applicant's employees. The application provided: 'It is requested that this insurance shall be effective on 4-10 1964 * * * It is agreed that this application is subject to the approval of the Gulf Life Insurance Company at its home office in Jacksonville, Florida, and that nothing contained herein shall be binding upon said company until this application has been so approved.' Newbern paid the first premium on the policy applied for, and defendant's soliciting agent 'assured W. G. Newbern * * * that the coverage was immediately effective with reference to his employees * * *' Leonard Posey, plaintiff's decedent and one of the employees, died on April 27, 1964, before defendant took any action on the application. Defendant thereafter rejected the application. Held:
The application in this case was a mere offer, and the defendant company was free to accept or reject it entirely. Boswell v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 197 Ga. 269, 272, 29 S.E.2d 71. There is no 'binding receipt' involved, nor does the application itself contain any language purporting to effect immediate coverage upon advance payment of the premium. The company is not liable on the proposed policy simply because it accepted the premium in advance on the supposition that the policy would be issued. McGlothin v. United States Nat. Life & Cas. Co., 36 Ga.App. 325(3), 136 S.E. 535. The soliciting agent in this case had no authority to bind the underwriting department of the company, whose duty it was to evaluate applications and risks. Cotton States Life Ins. Co. v. Scurry, 50 Ga. 48. See also Code Ann. § 56-2420(4). In the face of the plain and unambiguous language of the application stating 'that this application is subject to the approval of the * * * company at its home office * * * and that nothing contained herein shall be binding upon said company until this application has been so approved,' a mere verbal assurance by the agent of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parris & Son, Inc. v. Campbell, s. 47512
...Inc., 111 Ga.App. 164, 141 S.E.2d 208; Sasser v. Coastal States Life Ins. Co., 113 Ga.App. 17, 21, 147 S.E.2d 5; Posey v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 115 Ga.App. 531, 154 S.E.2d 745. And see Sorrells v. Atlanta Transit System, 218 Ga. 623, 129 S.E.2d 846; Williams v. Lockhart, 221 Ga. 343(3), 144 S......
-
Townsend v. State
... ... in the light of their experience in everyday life.' This statement was approved in Wrisper v ... ...
-
Beggs v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 68198
...on February 1, 1980, as contended by Pacific Mutual. As to the latter argument, however, we would be compelled by Posey v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 115 Ga.App. 531, 154 S.E.2d 745, to hold that coverage commenced February 1 notwithstanding the representations of the agent. See Posey, supra, and ......
-
Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co. v. Barker, 45569
...modify or change the written certificate and enrollment-record card as to the effective date of the coverage. See Posey v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 115 Ga.App. 531, 154 S.E.2d 745, and cases 4. The complaint cannot be considered as alleging the elements necessary for reformation of the contract,......