From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

American Mutual Insurance Company v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 23, 1983
311 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

66885.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 23, 1983.

Action on contract. Fulton State Court. Before Judge Alexander.

Joseph J. Gigliotti, for appellant.

Brady D. Green, W. Seaborn Jones, for appellee.


Plaintiff/appellant filed suit against defendant/appellee on a contract and appellee counterclaimed. A jury found for appellee in both the main action and the counterclaim, and this appeal followed.

1. In its first enumerated error, appellant argues that a series of jury charges given by the trial court did not state completely the law as to an implied or express waiver of an insurance policy provision. While appellant voiced an objection at trial to the charges at issue, that objection was not the one now enumerated as error. Since "grounds enumerated as error but not raised during trial may not be raised for the first time on appeal" ( Jackson v. Meadows, 157 Ga. App. 569, 571 ( 278 S.E.2d 8)), we need not consider this enumerated error further.

2. Appellant maintains that reversible error was committed when the trial court gave the jury instructions in an order which differed from that which was given to appellant's counsel. Finding no harm which resulted from this event, we decline to reverse the judgment on this ground. Premium Distributing Co. v. National Distributing Co., 157 Ga. App. 666, 670 ( 278 S.E.2d 468).

Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 23, 1983.


Summaries of

American Mutual Insurance Company v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 23, 1983
311 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

American Mutual Insurance Company v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:AMERICAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. THOMPSON

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Nov 23, 1983

Citations

311 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)
169 Ga. App. 24

Citing Cases

Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Boykin

Appellant further contends that appellee did not seek damages for mental anguish, inasmuch as such a claim…

Llop v. McDaniel, Chorey & Taylor

However, since the charge complained of does not amount to a substantial error as a matter of law (see OCGA §…