Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Hulsey

5 Citing cases

  1. Morgan v. Guaranty National Companies

    268 Ga. 343 (Ga. 1997)   Cited 29 times

    See id.Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Hulsey, 204 Ga. App. 508 ( 420 S.E.2d 54) (1992), cited by the Court of Appeals as its sole authority for the proposition that a declaratory judgment action is procedurally available to a insurer seeking resolution of the validity of a claimant's post-judgment demand for payment, is factually distinguishable from this case as Hulsey involved a claim for uninsured motorist benefits (such a claim being contingent upon the claimant's securing a judgment against the alleged tortfeasor, id. at 509) and the insurer had not denied coverage. Because our holding in Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Fountain, 262 Ga. 16 ( 413 S.E.2d 450) (1992) did not address cases involving post-judgment demands for coverage in insurance cases not involving uninsured motorist claims, we disapprove that language in Hulsey, supra at 510, positing that Fountain overruled such cases sub silentio.

  2. Southern Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ross

    227 Ga. App. 191 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that policy language stating that insurer will pay "all interest" accruing on judgment against its insured requires an insurer to pay interest on the entire judgment amount

    That case, however, was overruled sub silentio by Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Fountain, 262 Ga. 16 ( 413 S.E.2d 450) (1992). See Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Hulsey, 204 Ga. App. 508, 510 (1) ( 420 S.E.2d 54) (1992). Under Fountain, an insurer may bring a declaratory judgment action where 1) an insured has demanded payment; 2) the insurer has not denied the claim; 3) a legitimate question exists as to the validity and applicability of the policy provision at issue; and 4) the existing Georgia law does not provide a clear answer.

  3. Adams v. Atlanta Cas. Co.

    225 Ga. App. 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    2. Because both appellants have filed counterclaims against Atlanta Casualty, however, the coverage issue between the parties is not moot. See Baron v. Georgia Farm Mut. c. Ins. Co., 157 Ga. App. 16, 19 (1) ( 276 S.E.2d 78), perhaps overruled on other grounds; see Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Hulsey, 204 Ga. App. 508, 510 ( 420 S.E.2d 54). Therefore, Atlanta Casualty is free to raise its contentions regarding its exclusion as a defense to the Adams' and General Insurance's counterclaims, and by this ruling we express no opinion on that issue.

  4. Jefferson Ins. v. Dunn

    224 Ga. App. 732 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that under O.C.G.A. § 44–12–22"all choses in action arising upon contract may be assigned so as to vest the title in the assignee ... and [a]fter a loss, the claim of the insured, like any other chose in action, could be assigned without in any way affecting the insurer's liability"

    Richmond v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 140 Ga. App. 215, 216 (1), 219 ( 231 S.E.2d 245). Compare Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Hulsey, 204 Ga. App. 508, 509 (1), 510 ( 420 S.E.2d 54), where that insured did not demand payment until after a void judgment. There, this Court reasoned that "a declaratory judgment action is procedurally available to an insurer seeking resolution of the validity of a claimant's post-judgment demand for uninsured motorist benefits."

  5. Morgan v. Guaranty National Companies

    223 Ga. App. 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 3 times

    See Jenkins and Miller, Georgia Auto. Ins. Law (1994 ed.), §§ 7-4, 14-1. "[A] declaratory judgment action is procedurally available to an insurer seeking resolution of the validity of a claimant's post-judgment demand" for payment. Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Hulsey, 204 Ga. App. 508, 510 (1) ( 420 S.E.2d 54) (1992). Morgan misconstrues Richmond v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 140 Ga. App. 215 ( 231 S.E.2d 245) (1976).