Sun Ins. Co. of New York v. League

• Decision Date: 10 November 1965
• Docket Number: No. 41520,No. 3,41520,3
• Citation: 112 Ga.App. 625,145 S.E.2d 768
• Parties: SUN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. Colle J. LEAGUE, Sr
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 768

145 S.E.2d 768

112 Ga.App. 625

SUN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. Colle J. LEAGUE, Sr.

No. 41520.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Nov. 10, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The evidence authorized a verdict in the amount found for plaintiff for loss under the insurance policy sued upon.

2. The evidence authorized a verdict for plaintiff for additional damages and attorney's fees for bad faith.

Collie J. League, Sr. brought this action upon an automobile insurance policy against Sun Insurance Company of New York to recover benefits payable under the policy for collision damage to his car, which was insured against this type of damage under the policy issued by defendant. Plaintiff's petition also sought additional damages for bad faith and attorney's fees under Code Ann. § 56-1206.

At the beginning of the trial of the case, defendant made an admission in open court that plaintiff was entitled to recover in some amount. During the trial defendant made a motion for a directed verdict on the issue of additional damages and attorney's fees for bad faith. The motion was denied. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $2,650 plus $270 for bad faith and $500 as attorney's fees.

Defendant excepts to judgments of the trial court denying defendant's motion for new trial and denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of bad faith.

Smith, Ringel, Martin & Lowe, Hoke Smith, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Wotton, Long, Jones & Read, Calhoun A. Long, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

BELL, Presiding Judge.

1. As to the fair market value of plaintiff's car immediately prior to the collision, the highest value testified to was $3,000. As to the fair market value of the car after the collision, one of plaintiff's witnesses testified that the witness had received several offers, ranging from $400 to $900, to purchase the car for salvage and that in his opinion the car was worth $900. Defendant's adjuster testified. 'After the collision I thought the car would be worth five or six hundred dollars. I sent out and got some salvage bids and finally we got a bid of $750.'

Defendant points out that the highest estimate of $3,000 before the collision, minus the salvge offer of $400, minus $50 deductible under the policy, leaves only $2,550 as the largest possible verdict authorized by the evidence. On that basis defendant argues that the verdict of $2,650 was excessive.

This contention has no merit for there was other evidence indicative of the value of the car after the collision. Photographs of the car, itemized estimates of the cost of repairs and the testimony of automobile repairmen graphically and vividly demonstrate the condition of the car after the collision and the extensive damage upon it.

Market value may be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Harris, 1 Ga.App. 667, 669, 57 S.E. 1030; Landrum v. Swann, 8 Ga.App. 209(2) 68 S.E. 862; Farm Products Co. v. Eubanks, 29 Ga.App. 604, 607, 116 S.E. 327. On this issue, the jury 'are not absolutely bound even by the uncontradicted testimony of experts, but may consider the nature of the property involved and any other facts or circumstances within their knowledge in arriving at a verdict, provided there is in evidence sufficient facts from which they may draw a legitimate conclusion.' Grant v. Dannals, 87 Ga.App. 389, 391, 74 S.E.2d 119, 121. 'Questions of value are peculiarly for the determination of the jury where there is any date in the evidence upon which the jury may legitimately exercise their 'own knowledge and ideas." Dixon v. Cassels Co., 34 Ga.App. 478(3), 130 S.E. 75...