Terry v. Mays
Decision Date | 19 January 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 62859,62859 |
Citation | 291 S.E.2d 44,161 Ga.App. 328 |
Parties | TERRY v. MAYS et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alfred N. Corriere, Watkinsville, Don R. Moorhead, Rock Hill, for appellant.
Robert B. Struble, Rodger E. Davison, John Dickerson, Toccoa, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant Terry, a South Carolina resident, had an automobile insurance policy with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). The policy was entered into in South Carolina and included coverage for damage inflicted by an uninsured motorist. Terry and defendant Mays were involved in an automobile collision in Georgia. Mays was an uninsured motorist. Because service could not be obtained on Mays in South Carolina, Terry commenced this action for damages in Georgia against Mays, who answered the complaint. State Farm was served a copy of the complaint under the provisions of Code Ann. § 56-407.1(d) (Ga.L.1963, p. 588 through 1980, p. 1428), the Georgia uninsured motorist statute. State Farm answered the complaint in its own name as a party at interest, which is authorized by Code Ann. § 56-407.1(d), supra. Thereafter, without the knowledge or consent of State Farm, Terry and Mays entered into a consent judgment against Mays for $15,000. State Farm thereupon made a motion to be relieved as a party at interest because Terry had violated a provision of the insurance policy which excluded uninsured motorist coverage if the insured settled with an uninsured motorist without the consent of State Farm. Applying South Carolina law, the trial court granted the motion, from which Terry takes this appeal. Held :
1. Appellant's contention that the trial court erred in applying South Carolina law because procedural, rather than substantive law was involved is without merit. The issue is whether the exclusionary provision of the South Carolina contract, lawful in South Carolina and to be performed primarily in South Carolina, will be enforced in Georgia courts where such an exclusion is not favored by Georgia law.
The policy exclusion of coverage for settlement without consent of the insurer is lawful in South Carolina. Childs v. Allstate Ins. Co., 237 S.C. 455, 117 S.E.2d 867(2) (1961). However, such an exclusion has been held repugnant to Code Ann. § 56-407.1(g), supra, which provides that no policy may require anything of an insured, subject to other policy provisions, "except the establishment of legal liability, nor shall the insured be restricted or prevented, in any manner from employing legal counsel or instituting legal proceedings." Gulf American Fire & Cas. Co. v. McNeal, 115 Ga.App. 286(4b), 154 S.E.2d 411.
Mathews v. Greiner, 130 Ga.App. 817, 819-20, 204 S.E.2d 749.
Assuming arguendo, based on the holding of Gulf American Fire & Cas. Co. v. McNeal, 115 Ga.App. 286, 154 S.E.2d 411, supra, that the enforcement of such a policy exclusion is contrary to public policy in Georgia, we find that it does not prevent the enforcement of the provision against appellant who is in the courts of Georgia only because she could not obtain service on the defendant uninsured motorist in South Carolina. Under the circumstances any prejudice to the public interest in Georgia is not apparent.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Continental Cas. Co. v. Synalloy Corp.
...choice of law in contract cases remains the traditional "place of making" and "place of performance" rules. See Terry v. Mays, 161 Ga. App. 328, 291 S.E.2d 44 (1982); Rees, Choice of Law in Georgia: Time to Consider a Change?, 34 Mer.L.Rev. 787 (1983). The laws of the place of making govern......
-
General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Home Indem. Co., 66377
...of this issue and others that arise in determination of the results of this case, we find that our recent decision in Terry v. Mays, 161 Ga.App. 328, 291 S.E.2d 44, contains several pertinent holdings. That case offered a converse situation to the one presented in the case sub judice but ne......
-
Ferguson v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Civ.A. 1:98CV2887CAP.
...to enforcement of a rule of foreign law is where the result will violate the public policy of this state. See Terry v. Mays, 161 Ga.App. 328, 329, 291 S.E.2d 44 (1982). Neither Missouri's wrongful death statute nor its law of negligence is repugnant to Georgia's laws. Accordingly, in light ......
-
McGow v. McCurry
...of another state if the other state's law contravenes Georgia's public policy. See id. at 765, 417 S.E.2d at 674; Terry v. Mays, 161 Ga.App. 328, 329, 291 S.E.2d 44, 45 (1982). 2. District Court Applying Georgia's above choice-of-law rules, the district court acknowledged that Plaintiff McG......