Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance v. Norris
Citations: 132 S.E.2d 128; 108 Ga. App. 45; 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 535Docket: 40120
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; May 29, 1963; Georgia; State Appellate Court
In *Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Company of Hammond v. Norris*, the Court of Appeals of Georgia addressed several key issues regarding the defendant's motion for a directed verdict concerning penalties and attorneys' fees. The defendant argued that the lawsuit was premature because less than sixty days elapsed between the demand for payment and the filing of the action. However, the court noted that the defendant admitted to having received a demand on December 21, 1961, at which point it denied liability and failed to make any payments. The court emphasized that when an answer contains both an admission and a denial, the admission prevails. It established that a separate demand was unnecessary since the policy did not specify a timeframe for the insurer's response after the proofs of loss were submitted, which gave the insured an immediate right to make a demand. The court ultimately concluded that the pleadings supported the assumption that the plaintiff submitted the proofs of loss and demand around the same time, and that the defendant denied liability more than sixty days prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Thus, even if the evidence presented at trial did not clearly support the notion that sixty days had passed, the pleadings were sufficient to uphold the verdict on this issue. The trial court's decision to deny the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was affirmed. Additionally, the court addressed the defendant's challenge regarding the jury charge related to attorneys' fees, ruling that the charge was warranted based on evidence presented during the trial. The referenced cases by the defendant were deemed distinguishable as they involved situations where the evidence did not support the jury charge. Lastly, the court noted that the defendant contested the amount of attorneys' fees as excessive, but this was the only remaining ground of the motion for a new trial. The plaintiff's claim against the insurance company was initially denied on the grounds that the condition requiring hospitalization predated the policy and was thus not covered. During the trial, the defendant amended its answer to admit liability for the principal amount claimed. Evidence presented indicated that the insurer had previously refused to pay the claim without justifying its initial denial or demonstrating a good faith belief that the claim was invalid. The defendant had previously argued that a physician's statement indicated the hospitalization resulted from a pre-existing condition, but this defense was withdrawn in the amendment admitting liability. The court found that the insurer's refusal to pay the admitted claim warranted penalties and that the awarded attorneys' fees were reasonable based on local standards. The amount of attorneys' fees was not affected by the attorney's testimony regarding retention, as per Code Ann. 56-1206, which allows for agreed-upon fees. The trial court's decision was upheld, affirming the judgment.