Walka Mountain Camp, No. 565, Woodmen of World, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 23456,23456
• Citation: 149 S.E.2d 365,222 Ga. 249
• Parties: WALKA MOUNTAIN CAMP, NO. 565, WOODMEN OF the WORLD, INC. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 365

149 S.E.2d 365

222 Ga. 249

WALKA MOUNTAIN CAMP, NO. 565, WOODMEN OF the WORLD, INC. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY.

No. 23456.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 9, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

There was no identity of parties as is required for res judicata. Therefore, it was erroneous to sustain the ground of the defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon res judicata.

John N. Crudup, Gainesville, for appellant.

Robinson, Thompson, Buice & Harben, B. Carl Buice, Gainesville, for appellee.

GRICE, Justice.

An insured complains of the grant of its insurer's motion for summary judgment in a suit seeking reformation of the policy.

This complaint arose from an action filed in the Superior Court of White County by Walka Mountain Camp No. 565, Woodmen of the World, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 'the insured,' against Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer,' involving a liability policy issued to the insured by the insurer.

The petition made the following material allegations. The policy indemnified the insured for all sums for which it might become obligated by reason of liability imposed on it for bodily injury up to a specified amount per person, sustained by such person and caused by the insured's negligence in the operation and ownership of its premises. But the policy expressly excluded from its coverage any liability for injury occasioned by the maintenance, operation or use of saddle animals. This exclusion was a mutual mistake as the parties intended and agreed that the policy afford such coverage. On a named date during the term of the policy, one Newt Hulsey, hereinafter referred to as 'the injured party,' sustained injuries while attending a public horse-racing and social event sponsored by the insured upon its premises, and that subsequently it incurred liability to such injured party by reason of a judgment in a named amount, which remains unsatisfied. The insured's petition prayed that the policy be reformed so as to speak the intended agreement of the parties and that the liability imposed upon the insured as a result of the judgment against it be indemnified by the insurer.

The insurer's responses to the foregoing petition included a plea of res judicata, which recited that the injured party had previously filed suit against the insurer seeking to recover upon the same policy for the same injuries alleged in the petition. It attached and incorporated by reference the petition and the amendment thereto in such previous case. The plea further recited that in such case the injured party was privy to the insured in this case, all of his rights being derived from the rights of such insured under the policy now sought to be reformed. The plea then alleged that the previous case between the injured party and the insurer terminated unfavorably to the injured party by the sustaining of general demurrers and dismissal of his petition, and that such judgment is conclusive as to the rights of the parties in the instant action. It prayed for judgment against the insured.

The insurer also interposed a motion for summary judgment upon five grounds. The one ground sustained, and complained of here, asserted that the insurer's plea of res judicata should be sustained. It recited that the issue in the instant case is one...