Thomas v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co.

19 Citing cases

  1. Thomas v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Company

    312 S.E.2d 333 (Ga. 1984)   Cited 7 times
    Characterizing Brooks; "A beneficiary has a right to bring an action for reformation of a life policy. . . ."

    DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1984. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 14, 1984. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia โ€” 168 Ga. App. 267. Richard Phillips, for appellant.

  2. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. T&G Enters., Inc.

    751 S.E.2d 99 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)

    โ€ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Thomas v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 168 Ga.App. 267, 268(1) 308 S.E.2d 609 (1983), aff'd, 252 Ga. 259, 312 S.E.2d 333 (1984). OCGA ยง 33โ€“24โ€“33 is the controlling statutory authority with regard to insurance binders.

  3. Fitzsimons v. W.M. Collins Enterprises, Inc.

    271 Ga. App. 854 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    We are unpersuaded by appellants' argument that the evidence demanded the conclusion that the statements made by FitzSimons were merely opinions relating to insurance coverage that were not subject to a fraud cause of action. See Thomas v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 267, 269 (4) ( 308 SE2d 609) (1983). To the contrary, the evidence supports the conclusion that FitzSimons made misrepresentations as to the actual fact of an insurance policy existing that would provide coverage for construction work when no such policy actually existed.

  4. VFH Captive Insurance v. Cielinski

    581 S.E.2d 335 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    (a) VFH points to testimony by Gray in which he contends that he had an oral insurance contract with Rapid Group. VFH contends that an insurance policy must be in writing and that Gray never produced a written policy. See OCGA ยง 33-24-1(1); Thomas v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 267, 268(1) ( 308 S.E.2d 609) (1983). To make out a case, . . . the party seeking to set up a parol contract, which the law requires to be in writing, must show that he has done some act in performance of the contract upon his side, which act of performance has put him in a new position, so as that it would be a fraud upon him to permit the other party who has accepted this part performance to repudiate it.

  5. Parks v. State Farm General Insurance

    231 Ga. App. 26 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    A binder can be oral or written. OCGA ยง 33-24-33; Thomas v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 267, 268 (1) ( 308 S.E.2d 609) (1983). A binder is not a mere offer but is itself "`"a contract โ€” temporary, sketchy, and informal . . . ."'[Cit.]."

  6. Primus Pharmaceuticals v. Glovier

    450 S.E.2d 832 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)

    2. Neither was the trial court required to charge that a life insurance policy must be in writing to be binding (see Thomas v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 267 ( 308 S.E.2d 609)); this suit was not filed to enforce a life insurance policy. This suit was filed to enforce Primus' oral agreement to pay Glovier's estate $200,000.

  7. Fowler v. Prudential Property Casualty Ins. Co.

    214 Ga. App. 766 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 10 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Thomas v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 267, 269 (3) ( 308 S.E.2d 609) (1983). Moreover, in view of the specific terms of the policy and the lack of any evidence that Harwell had authority to orally bind the policy past the premium due date, we cannot say the Fowlers were justified in relying on Harwell's alleged misrepresentation.

  8. Academy Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson

    426 S.E.2d 34 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Atkinson v. American c. Ins. Co., 165 Ga. App. 102, 103 (1) ( 299 S.E.2d 600) (1983); see also Thomas v. Union c. Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 267 ( 308 S.E.2d 609) (1983); aff'd, 252 Ga. 259 ( 312 S.E.2d 333) (1984); Whitmire v. Colonial c. Ins. Co., 172 Ga. App. 651 ( 323 S.E.2d 843) (1984); Robertson v. Life Ins. Co. of Ga., 196 Ga. App. 294 ( 396 S.E.2d 35) (1990). This rule is controlling here, and the trial court erred in failing to grant Academy Life's motion for summary judgment.

  9. Trulove v. W.O.W. Life Ins. Society

    204 Ga. App. 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that "one signing a document has a duty to read it and is bound by the terms of a document he does not read"

    Specifically, the trial court found that the notice requirement was disclosed in bold print in plain English on the face of the policy; after the plaintiff decided too late, i.e., beyond the 10-day period, that he did not want the policy but wanted a refund, defendant offered to return the unearned portion of the premium as calculated from the policy; the insurance company continued the policy in force with full coverage until the policy lapsed for failure to pay the second year's premium and that is all defendant was required to do; under well-established law, after a policy of insurance is issued, prior representations of the agent afford no basis for recovery. 1. Trulove concedes that under such cases as Thomas v. Union Fidelity Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 267 ( 308 S.E.2d 609) (1983), oral statements by an agent of an insurance company generally cannot bind the insurance company, and, as recognized in such cases as Powell v. James Hereford McClelland, 189 Ga. App. 747 ( 377 S.E.2d 683) (1989), one signing a document has a duty to read it and is bound by the terms of a document he does not read. Trulove argues there are facts from which the jury could have found that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between him and Jones, and, as recognized in Powell, this gives rise to an exception to the foregoing rules. "[A] party to a confidential or fiduciary relationship may rely upon representations made. . . ."

  10. Brannen v. Gulf Life Ins. Co.

    201 Ga. App. 241 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that a "duplicate" policy was the proper instrument for the analysis of mistake when it "clearly and unequivocally" voided an earlier policy

    In Georgia, life insurance contracts, such as in this case, must be in writing. Georgia Cas. c. Co. v. Hardrick, 211 Ga. 709, 712 (3) ( 88 S.E.2d 394); see Thomas v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 267, 268 (1) ( 308 S.E.2d 609), aff'd 252 Ga. 259 ( 312 S.E.2d 333); OCGA ยงยง 33-24-1 (1); 33-24-16; 33-24-18 (a); 33-25-1; 33-25-3; 33-25-3.1. 2.