Unigard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fox
| Decision Date | 09 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53946,No. 2,53946,2 |
| Citation | 142 Ga.App. 706,236 S.E.2d 851 |
| Parties | UNIGARD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Marie FOX |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Savell, Williams, Cox & Angel, Andrew Robert Greene, Atlanta, for appellant.
Barnes & Browning, Roy E. Barnes, Jr., Marietta, for appellee.
The plaintiff brought suit on a fire insurance policy against the defendant insurance company. The case came on for trial, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. At the close of the evidence, the defendant had moved for directed verdict and, therefore, thereafter filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative a motion for a new trial. These motions were overruled and appeal followed.
The facts pertinent to the present appeal may be summarized as follows. The defendant issued to the plaintiff a fire insurance policy covering a frame dwelling. The term of this policy was from May 18, 1973 to May 18, 1974. Subsequently another policy was issued on the same property for a one year term from May 18, 1974 to May 18, 1975. On May 24, 1975 the premises in question were destroyed by fire. At that time the policy had not been renewed and no premium had been tendered to the defendant insurance company. About this same time, the defendant sent a notice to the plaintiff stating that the defendant had not received a payment covering the plaintiff's renewal premium for fire insurance on the dwelling. The notice further stated: "If your payment is not received by 6/8/75, we must regard your policy as having expired as of 12:00 noon standard time on 5/18/75, and your policy is cancelled at that time without further notice." According to the plaintiff's testimony, she received this notice on June 16, 1975 and tendered her premium on June 25, 1975, which tender was refused by the defendant. Held :
The policy having a term from May 18, 1974 to May 18, 1975 contained a provision relative to "cancellation for nonpayment of premium." In essence it required the defendant to give a 10 day notice of cancellation to the plaintiff in order for the cancellation to be effective. The plaintiff argues that the notice which she received on June 16, 1975 in effect gave a grace period to the policy which was extended to June 8, 1975 and that a 10 day notice of cancellation was required relative to that time frame.
Automobile liability insurance is covered by a specific provision of the Code. Code Ann. § 56-2430.1 (). That provision, as we have construed it, in effect gives an automatic renewal of an automobile liability coverage unless an insurance company meets the requirements therein set forth. Garner v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 129 Ga.App. 235, 199 S.E.2d 350.
However, as to other forms of insurance our courts have made a clear distinction between the cancellation of a policy during the term and the expiration of the policy at the end of its term. Where the policy expires no notice of cancellation is necessary. Robertson v. Southland Life Ins. Co., 130 Ga.App. 807, 808, 204 S.E.2d 505. Accord, Reece v. Mass. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 107 Ga.App. 581(1), 130 S.E.2d 782; Barnes v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 140 Ga.App. 515(1), 231 S.E.2d 569.
In the case sub judice the policy expired by its terms on May 18, 1975 and the defendant insurance company was under no statutory obligation or contractual duty to tender a notice of cancellation....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v. Lloyd's of London
...in the renewal premium context but, for various reasons, have not found waiver or estoppel. See, e.g., Unigard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fox, 142 Ga.App. 706, 708, 236 S.E.2d 851 (1977) (noting rule ["with regard to contract deviations or mutual departure"] where a 1-year fire policy expired before ......
-
Tippins Bank & Trust Co. v. Southern General Ins. Co.
...783, 784(2), 371 S.E.2d 426 (1988) (construing the identical language of OCGA § 33-24-45(e)(1)). Compare Unigard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fox, 142 Ga.App. 706, 236 S.E.2d 851 (1977) (decided prior to enactment of OCGA § 33-24-46). If this language mandates an automatic renewal of automobile insuran......
-
White v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...Hence, under these circumstances there is no basis on which the plaintiff could predicate recovery. Unigard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fox, 142 Ga.App. 706, 708, 236 S.E.2d 851 (1977). "[U]nder the terms of the insurance contract the punctual payment of the required premiums was of the essence of the......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Nessmith, 69458
... ... v. Whitaker, 57 Ga.App. 418, 423, 195 S.E. 584 (1938). In the case of Unigard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fox, 142 Ga.App ... 706, 236 S.E.2d 851 (1977), the court applied this rule to hold that evidence of a single payment made outside ... ...