S & A Corp. v. Berger Co.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 40963,40963,2 |
| Citation | 111 Ga.App. 39,140 S.E.2d 509 |
| Parties | S & A CORPORATION v. BERGER COMPANY, Inc |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where under the undisputed facts the consequences of the defendant's negligence, if any, could have been avoided by the plaintiff after such negligence, if any, of the defendant became apparent a finding for the defendant is demanded.
S & A Corporation, as plaintiff, sued Berger & Company, Inc., as defendant, in the Civil Court of Fulton County to recover for an alleged breach of contract. In substance plaintiff's petition alleged that plaintiff contracted with defendant to procure insurance on certain property belonging to plaintiff against fire damage in the amount of $7,500 and that defendant did fail and neglect so to do, but negligently did cause said property to be insured in the amount of $3,000 only; that subsequently to the issuance of the $3,000 policy said property was totally destroyed by fire; that immediately prior to said fire and damage the reasonable market value of the said property was in excess of $7,500 and immediately thereafter the said property had no market value whatever; that plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $4,500 by reason of defendant's failure to insure the property in the amount of $7,500 pursuant to said contract between them. Thereafter on June 1, 1964, defendant filed its motion for summary judgment and on June 3, 1964, plaintiff also filed its motion for summary judgment; on July 8, 1964, the trial court, after hearing arguments on said motions, entered an order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendant and entered judgment in favor of defendant. To the order and judgment of the trial court adverse to it the plaintiff excepted and brings the case here for review.
Fine & Rolader, A. J. Block, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
T. J. Long, Ben Weinberg, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. Plaintiff here contends that because the defendant contracted with plaintiff to procure insurance on plaintiff's property in the amount stipulated in the contract ($7,500), and then negligently failed to procure same constituted a breach of the contract and for which defendant is liable to plaintiff for the damages occasioned by and arising out of such breach of contract. In support of its contentions plaintiff cites several cases, as follows: Consumers Financing Corp. v. Lamb, Administratrix, 217 Ga. 359, 122 S.E.2d 101; Home Building & Loan Association of LaGrange v. Hester, 213 Ga. 393, 99 S.E.2d 87; Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Winfrey, 89 Ga.App. 122, 78 S.E.2d 818; Minter v. Georgia Piggly-Wiggly Co., 185 Ga. 116, 194 S.E. 176; Bell v. Fitz, 84 Ga.App. 220, 66 S.E.2d 108; and Farlow v. Barton, 60 Ga.App. 287, 3 S.E.2d 777. In each of the cases cited, however, with the exception of Minter v. Georgia Piggly-Wiggly Co., supra, is a case where liability was imposed where the plaintiff had paid and the defendant had accepted a premium for insurance which was never procured. In Minter v. Georgia Piggly-Wiggly Co., supra, the factual situation was somewhat different in that although the employer had in fact accepted premiums under a master group policy, the plaintiff had not and could not, become eligible to receive benefits under the previously written policy. It not being made to appear in that case that the employee had failed to procure other insurance coverage because of any statement made by the employer the suit was dismissed on general demurrer. None of the cases cited by plaintiff have any application to the case at bar for the reason that although the insurance policy was in the possession of the plaintiff, prior to and at the time of the fire, the premium on said policy had not been paid.
While it is true, under the record in this case, the defendant did fail to procure the amount of insurance coverage contracted for, yet it was the plaintiff's own negligence in failing to check the amount of the policy coverage that was the proximate cause of plaintiff's loss. Code § 105-603....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brookins v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., Civ. A. No. CV180-66.
...prior to the fire plaintiff was charged with the knowledge of the terms and conditions of the policy ..." S. & A. Corp. v. Berger & Co., 111 Ga. App. 39, 40 140 S.E.2d 509 .... Failure of an insured to acquaint himself with the policy provisions does not excuse his compliance with the requi......
-
Wright Body Works, Inc. v. Columbus Interstate Ins. Agency
...the court noting that such affirmance was 'after a careful consideration.' This was followed by our court in S & A Corp. v. Berger & Co., Inc., 111 Ga.App. 39, 140 S.E.2d 509. Upon affirming the grant of a summary judgment for a defendant insurance agent Judge (now Justice) Nichols conclude......
-
Westchester Specialty Ins. Services, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.
...of the policy.' " England v. Georgia-Florida Co., 198 Ga.App. 704, 402 S.E.2d 783, 785 (1991) (quoting S & A Corp. v. Berger Co., Inc., 111 Ga.App. 39, 140 S.E.2d 509, 511 (1965)). See also Atlanta Women's Club I, 427 S.E.2d at An exception to this general rule applies to cases in which the......
-
Wheeler v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co.
...97 Ga.App. 286, 288(3), 102 S.E.2d 921), affirmed in Fields v. Goldstein, 214 Ga. 277, 104 S.E.2d 337; S & A Corp. v. Berger & Co., 111 Ga.App. 39, 40(1), 140 S.E.2d 509; Parris & Son v. Campbell, 128 Ga.App. 165, 173(13), 196 S.E.2d 334; Virginia Mut. v. Price, 132 Ga.App. 445, 448, 208 S.......