DocketNumber: 50144
Judges: Deen, Stolz
Filed Date: 2/5/1975
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/7/2024
1. The plaintiff Patricia Thompson purchased an automobile with money borrowed from the defendant Trust Company of Georgia and on which the bank had
The only witness other than the plaintiff was the secretary of the insurance company, who testified positively that a renewal certificate was issued on May 30, 1972, prior to the expiration of the policy, extending coverage to June 30,1973, and that this was done in the usual course of business as "the agents observe the usual custom of insurance agencies of issuing renewals from 30 to 60 days prior to the expiration.”
2. The automobile was wrecked, with damage exceeding the insurance coverage. It is true, as the appellant contends, that no evidence of the date of the accident appears in the record, and for this reason alone
3. "An agent who negligently fails to procure insurance for his principal is liable to the principal for any resulting loss. See Thomas v. Funkhouser, 91 Ga. 478 (18 SE 312).” Wright Body Works v. Columbus Interstate Ins. Agency, 233 Ga. 268 (210 SE2d 801), and see Anderson v. Redwal Music Co., 122 Ga. App. 247 (176 SE2d 645).
4. "The seller retains an insurable interest in goods so long as title to or any security interest in the goods remains in him.” Code Ann. § 109A-2—501 (2). See also Code Ann. § 56-2405 (2). The bank thus had a right to take out insurance to protect its own interest, and, by agreement with the plaintiff, it became her agent to take out collision insurance for her, adding the premium price to the instalment price of the vehicle loan. The sole question here is whether there is any evidence to substantiate the plaintiffs theory that, after notification that the policy would expire on June 30, 1972, and a request for proof of current insurance which she did not meet, the bank’s "renewal” of the original policy ran from July 1, 1973, when the insurance lapsed, or from August 23, 1973, the date of the renewal instalment contract including another twelve month insurance billing. The contract itself was paid in full and the plaintiff received her certificate of title in May, 1973. The dates of the insurance are not specified in the contract, nor was the plaintiff ever informed that coverage would extend for 12 months from the August 23 contract date. The certificate of the insurer and the testimony of the defendant’s witness are uncontradicted that the coverage was extended prior to the June 30 expiration date for 12 months from that date. The mere fact that the plaintiff received a rewritten instalment contract in August is not evidence that she was uninsured in June and July 23 she contends. It follows that there is no evidence that the insurance lapsed and was subsequently reinstated, rather than renewed as the defendant’s witness testified. Accordingly, assuming that the loss took place on August
Judgment reversed.