Opinion
58342.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 24, 1979.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 21, 1979.
Action on policy. Clarke Superior Court. Before Judge Gaines.
James W. Smith, for appellant.
Eugene A. Epting, John Hix, for appellees.
Raymond Moon, pro se.
The plaintiff-appellant, Hill, contends that he renewed his fire insurance policy by making a premium payment to Raymond Moon and subsequently suffered a loss which the insurer failed to pay contending that the policy had not been renewed.
As stated by defendant insurance companies in their brief, "[t]he real issue in this case is whether Raymond Moon was or was not an agent for [defendant company] with authority to bind that company by an alleged oral agreement with [plaintiff] to renew a fire policy." We find that defendants have not carried their summary judgment burden of removing this issue from the case since a question of fact as to it is clearly presented by the affidavit of Moon that plaintiff paid him to renew the policy; that when he received the consideration he was acting as agent for these insurance companies; that as agent for these companies he told plaintiff the policy was renewed; and that as such agent he visited the scene of the fire, accepted proof of loss, and told plaintiff he was covered. Since this testimony comes from a party to the relationship it is not objectionable as being conclusory but is admissible in evidence ( Salters v. Pugmire Lincoln-Mercury, 124 Ga. App. 414 ( 184 S.E.2d 56) (1971); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Cumbie, 128 Ga. App. 723 ( 197 S.E.2d 783) (1973)), and it requires our reversal of the summary judgment granted below.
Judgment reversed. McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.