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.
Brown v. Hitch
Citations: 208 Ga. App. 784; 431 S.E.2d 751; 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 2130; 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 673Docket: A93A0210
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; June 1, 1993; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Plaintiff Brown appeals a summary judgment favoring defendant Hitch concerning a breach of an employment contract. Brown, a physician, had an agreement with Hitch, the director of a professional corporation supplying physicians to Candler General Hospital’s emergency room, which mandated that Brown maintain professional liability insurance with a minimum coverage of $1,000,000. Hitch was to reimburse Brown for this insurance, provided he submitted an invoice and canceled check. The contract, established on July 1, 1987, automatically renewed annually until terminated by Brown in September 1990. During the agreement, Brown acquired a "claims made" liability insurance policy, for which Hitch reimbursed him. Anticipating the end of his employment, Brown purchased a "tail end" policy for claims arising after the primary policy's coverage ceased. Brown requested reimbursement from Hitch for this tail coverage in October 1990, but Hitch declined, arguing he was not obliged to reimburse for insurance not in effect during the contract term. Brown contested the trial court's conclusions that the agreement was unambiguous and asserted that, even if ambiguous, its meaning was clear. The court’s role is to interpret contracts where language is undisputed but meaning is contested, focusing on the parties' intent. The trial court found that Hitch's testimony clarified the contract’s intent, revealing that the insurance requirement was included solely to comply with Candler Hospital’s medical staff rules. The policy insures only the individual physician, not Dr. Hitch or Candler. Dr. Hitch’s provision of insurance is solely to comply with hospital staff rules, and he intended for the coverage to apply only while the physician provided services at Candler. The agreement specifically indicates this intention. Brown purchased 'claims made' coverage for the duration of the contract, which Hitch reimbursed, demonstrating their mutual understanding of the contract's terms. The interpretation of a contract based on the parties' actions carries significant weight. The trial court correctly interpreted the agreement, concluding that reimbursement for 'tail insurance' was not required. Brown argued that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to him, but the court determined Hitch had shown a lack of evidence for Brown's reimbursement claim. Consequently, Brown was obligated to provide specific evidence to create a triable issue. Failing to do so, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, affirming the judgment.