lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
BANKERS FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. O'BARR.
BANKERS FIDELITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MORGAN.
40041.
40042.
Action to recover insurance premiums; summary judgments. Screven Superior Court. Before Judge Usher.
BELL, Judge.
(b) Where the motion for summary judgment, its supporting affidavits, and the pleadings would have authorized the grant of a summary judgment if the contract of settlement of the suit as asserted in the supporting affidavit were to remain uncontroverted and found to exist as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment.
2. Where genuine issues as to material facts are raised in opposing affidavits on a hearing for summary judgment, it is erroneous for a trial judge to grant the motion and enter judgment for the movant.
Each of the petitions in these two cases seeks the recovery of insurance premiums paid under the statutory remedy authorized by former Code 56-519.
Prior to the trial on the merits, the two plaintiffs presented motions for summary judgment to the trial court, each of which was supported by an accompanying affidavit. Thereafter, the defendant filed in each case a motion to dismiss plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The defendant filed counter affidavits in opposition to the motions for summary judgment, and an additional affidavit in support of their motion was filed by each of the movants.
On December 18, 1962, hearings were had upon the defendant's motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment in each case and upon the merits of each of the motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, on January 7, 1963, the trial judge overruled the motions to dismiss the motions for summary judgment and found that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact in either of the cases and entered judgment in favor of each of the movants. Exceptions were brought by the defendant to the judgment of the trial court overruling its motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment in each case and to the judgment of the court granting each of the motions for summary judgment and entering judgment for each of the movants.
1. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
A definite, certain and unambiguous oral contract of settlement of a pending cause of action is a valid and binding agreement. Where the suit is pending, either of the parties to the case is entitled to a final judgment based on the terms of the agreement of settlement so as to render certain the termination of the case. Kapiloff v. Askin Stores, 202 Ga. 292 (42 SE2d 724); Coggins v. Edmonds, 209 Ga. 381, 383 (2) (73 SE2d 199); Boswell v. Gillen, 131 Ga. 310 (62 SE 187). In each case here the motion for summary judgment, its supporting affidavit and the pleadings would have authorized the grant of a summary judgment if the contract of settlement of the suit as asserted in the supporting affidavit were to remain uncontroverted and found to exist as a matter of law. Davis v. Holt, 105 Ga. App. 125, 131 (2) (123 SE2d 686).
Ch. 110-12 and Bagley v. Firestone Tire &c. Co., 104 Ga. App. 736 (123 SE2d 179).
The judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment and entering judgment in favor of each Of the movants in these two cases is
Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin & Carr, Sam F. Lowe, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
DECIDED JULY 2, 1963 -- REHEARING DENIED JULY 16, 1963.
Friday May 22 22:06 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com