$6,000 $ 28 Fire and lightning Vandalism and malicious mischief
* The word "and" is typed in as are the figures. The remaining words are printed.
In December, 1976, and January, 1977, the properties involved suffered from vandalism and/or malicious mischief. An officer of appellant examined his policies and concluded there was no coverage. He did not mention this to his insurance broker, however, until the end of the following August, and was then informed that there was indeed coverage in accordance with the original insurance applications. Claims were then filed. The insurer denied liability because of failure to comply with the policy requirement that "the insured shall give immediate written notice to this Company of any loss." The policy further specified that no action for recovery of any claim is sustainable unless all policy requirements have been complied with.
Upon suit being brought and on the basis of the facts set out above the insurer moved for and was granted summary judgment. This appeal followed.
1. It is not contested that failure to comply with notice of loss provisions will in the absence of waiver of estoppel or other facts constituting a justification to the insured or making it unreasonable to demand full compliance, be a bar to an action on the policy where such provision is made a condition precedent by the terms of the contract. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. J. B. Forrest &c., 132 Ga. App. 714 (3) (209 SE2d 6) (1974)
; Wolverine Ins. Co. v. Sorrough, 122 Ga. App. 556 (177 SE2d 819) (1970)
; Edwards v. Fidelity &c. Co., 129 Ga. App. 306 (199 SE2d 570) (1973)
; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Edwards, 237 FSupp. 195 (1964). There appears to be no onus on the insurer to prove its defenses have been prejudiced by the delay. Richmond v. Ga. Farm Bureau &c. Ins. Co., 140 Ga. App. 215
, 222 (231 SE2d 245
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, John R. Gaughen, for appellee.