Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant engaged Rollins Protective Services in 1973 to enhance her home security with an automatic dialer intended to alert Rollins upon alarm activation. In 1981, her home was burglarized, and the dialer failed to notify Rollins, prompting the appellant to file suit alleging fraud, breach of warranty, negligent installation, and violation of the Fair Business Practices Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to Rollins, but the appellant contested this, claiming she had informed Rollins about her rotary phone setup, which affected the dialer's functionality. Unresolved factual disputes regarding Rollins' knowledge of the phone setup and allegations of willful misconduct rendered summary judgment inappropriate under OCGA § 9-11-56(c). Additionally, despite a contractual liability limitation to $250, the appellant's claims of willful and wanton conduct exempted such limitations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, acknowledging the potential for Rollins' liability beyond the contractual limit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Breach of Warranty and Negligence Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant claimed Rollins breached its warranty and negligently installed the security system, with unresolved factual disputes regarding the system's compatibility with a rotary phone.
Reasoning: There was undisputed evidence that the installed system could not operate with a rotary phone, yet no evidence confirmed whether a rotary phone system was active at the time of installation.
Fraud and Fair Business Practices Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant alleged fraud and a violation of the Fair Business Practices Act by asserting that Rollins misrepresented the security system's capabilities.
Reasoning: Peck sued Rollins for fraud, violation of the Fair Business Practices Act, negligent installation, and breach of warranty.
Liability Limitation Clauses in Contractssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A liability limitation clause cannot restrict recovery for willful and wanton conduct, which was alleged by the appellant.
Reasoning: Liability limitations for negligent acts do not apply to willful and wanton conduct, leading to the conclusion that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Rollins on this issue.
Summary Judgment Standards under OCGA § 9-11-56(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Summary judgment is inappropriate when material facts are in dispute, as all evidence must be viewed in favor of the opposing party.
Reasoning: Under OCGA § 9-11-56(c), summary judgment is only permissible when no material facts are disputed and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.