Case Title: Cohran v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Citation: 258 Ga. 341, 368 S.E.2d 751

Docket Number: 

State: georgia

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Date: 1988-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
258 Ga. 341 (1988) 368 S.E.2d 751 COHRAN v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. 45604. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided June 9, 1988. Reconsideration Denied June 23, 1988. Larry Cohran, pro se. Drew, Eckl & Farnham, Clayton H. Farnham, for appellee. HUNT, Justice. In this certified question from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, we are asked to answer the question: "Whether an insurance company accepts an insured's counter offer through silence and the retention of the insured's premium?" The facts are set out by the Eleventh Circuit in its certified question. 1. The issue is whether there was a meeting of the minds between the parties as to the effective date of the renewal contract. Liberty Mutual offered to renew the policy effective July 23, 1980. Cohran's letter and check requesting an effective date of June 10, 1980 amounted to no more than a counter offer that could have been accepted or rejected by Liberty Mutual. The company did neither as of the date of the loss which was June 15, 1980. Cohran's contention that the company accepted his offer by retaining the check for a few days is meritless. As Judge Homer Eberhardt wrote in Sasser v. Coastal States Life Ins. Co., 113 Ga. App. 17, 19 (147 SE2d 5) (1966): See also Harrison v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 155 Ga. App. 226, 227 (270 SE2d 389) (1980), a case in which the premium was retained for two months without acceptance by the insurer. Thus, there was no meeting of the minds as to the creation of a new contract, and Liberty Mutual's obligation arose only from the previous contract. Nor was Liberty Mutual estopped to deny the existence of a renewal contract under the facts of this case. The statutes and cases dealing with estoppel, upon which Cohran relies, contemplate or involve conduct by the insurer of another sort. Under these facts, the answer to the certified question is no. 2. Cohran's motion for sanctions is denied. Certified question answered in the negative. All the Justices concur.