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.
Primus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Glovier
Citations: 215 Ga. App. 411; 450 S.E.2d 832; 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3612; 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 1251Docket: A94A2236
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; October 31, 1994; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Primus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. appealed a jury verdict that favored Ralph Glovier, who claimed Primus had agreed to pay $200,000 to his estate from the proceeds of a life insurance policy on his life, which Primus had procured. Glovier, who was pivotal in founding Primus and served as its president, argued that this payment was part of his employment benefits. After his cancer diagnosis, he retired, and Primus later sold the insurance policy for $500,000, subsequently denying any obligation to pay Glovier's estate, citing the lack of a written agreement and a supposed condition that he must be employed at the time of his death. The jury found no such employment condition existed, ruling in favor of Glovier. Primus contended that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that a life insurance contract must be in writing and failing to define a life insurance contract under Georgia law (OCGA 33-25-1). The court clarified that Glovier's claim was not about enforcing a life insurance contract but rather about enforcing an oral agreement regarding the payment to his estate. Primus also argued that the statute of frauds barred the agreement since it could not be performed within a year. However, the court ruled that this statute does not apply to indefinite agreements that can be performed within one year. Regarding the admission of Glovier's medical condition evidence, the court found it relevant to the jury's understanding of the agreement's terms and the reasonableness of any conditions, concluding that the evidence did not prejudice the case. Finally, the court affirmed the jury's verdict, noting that sufficient evidence supported the decision and denied Primus’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, directed verdict, and new trial. The judgment was upheld, with judges Blackburn and Ruffin concurring.