Tate v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 56911,56911 |
| Citation | 149 Ga.App. 123,253 S.E.2d 775 |
| Parties | TATE v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
E. Graydon Shuford, Decatur, Robert L. Coley, Atlanta, for appellant.
Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Sidney F. Wheeler, J. M. Hudgins, IV, Ben S. Williams, Atlanta, for appellees.
The plaintiff appeals from the grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment with regard to the second count of the plaintiff's complaint. The count in question, as amended, alleged: that the defendant Aetna Casualty issued a fire insurance policy to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff's home was damaged by fire which loss was properly reported and the plaintiff fully complied with the terms of the contract; that the defendant undertook the duty to assist the plaintiff in submitting his claim in determining his loss; that defendant was negligent in the following particulars: in violating accepted standards in the industry; in violating its own ethical standards; in using an unlicensed and incompetent adjuster and personnel; in committing an unfair business practice; in failing to use due care to include all of plaintiff's losses under the law; in failing to properly inspect plaintiff's losses and property; in failing to properly consider plaintiff's estimates of his loss.
The complaint further alleged that as proximate result of the defendant's acts of negligence the plaintiff was damaged in that he was induced and caused to spend twelve days in obtaining estimates and expenses of travel as well as mental and emotional stress and that the plaintiff was caused to be in violation of the regulations of the City of Atlanta and to spend money and time as a result thereof; also, that the plaintiff suffered partial loss of the use of his home. Under the allegations of Count 2 the plaintiff sought to recover actual damages for loss of use of part of his home and the rental value thereof; for mental and emotional upset and suffering that was caused by the defendant's negligence; for his expense and time in acquiring estimates of loss; for his time and expense as a result of defendant's violating the Atlanta city ordinance and for punitive damages in the sum of at least $100,000.
After various discovery proceedings and the taking of depositions the cause came on for hearing. The trial judge sustained the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the second count of the plaintiff's complaint and dismissed the same. Held:
In the case sub judice the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant was a contractual one arising out of the policy of fire insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. " Thomas v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claxton v. SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN. OF US GOVERN.
...independent of contract to constitute a tort. Id. at 365, 203 S.E.2d 587 (citations omitted); see Tate v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 149 Ga.App. 123, 124-25, 253 S.E.2d 775 (1979). In this case, the "gravamen" of plaintiff's complaint is that the SBA did not perform an affirmative duty wh......
-
Camacho v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 1:11–CV–3111–AT.
...narrow context, Georgia law is clear that improper claims handling is a matter of contract, not tort. Tate v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 149 Ga.App. 123, 253 S.E.2d 775, 776 (1979) (upholding summary judgment on the grounds that insured's claims were not supported by an independent duty in tort......
-
Arrow Exterminators, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins.
...and, therefore, raise only breach of contract issues. The Georgia Court of Appeals' decision in Tate v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 149 Ga.App. 123, 124, 253 S.E.2d 775 (1979), is very much on point and very illustrative in this regard. In Tate, the insured brought a lawsuit against hi......
-
William Loveland Coll. v. Distance Educ. Accreditation Comm'n, Civil Action No. 17-2037 (ABJ)
...and above the mere disappointment of plaintiff's hope to receive his contracted-for benefit.’ "), quoting Tate v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. , 149 Ga. App. 123, 124, 253 S.E.2d 775 (1979) ; see Def.'s Reply at 14. According to the complaint, DEAC had an obligation to provide fair accreditation s......
-
Insurance
...No. CV409-140, 2012 WL 1865410 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 23, 2012). 52. Id. at *9.53. Id. at *2; see also Tate v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 149 Ga. App. 123, 124, 253 S.E.2d 775, 777 (1979); Arrow Exterminators, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 136 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1355-56 (n.d. Ga. 2001).54. O.C.G.A. § 33-......