THI RD DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, M CM ILLI A N and BETHEL, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 9, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A 16A 1 851. P O P H A M v. L A N D M ARK AM ERICA

N I N S U R A N C E

COM PANY, et al

. BE-0 0 4

B E T H E L , J u d g e.

Ch arl es Po p ham (“ Po p h am ”) ap peal s fro m an o rd er gran t i n g s u m m ary

j u d g m en t i n fav o r o f d efen d an t s Lan d m ark Am eri can In su ran ce Co m p an y

(“ Lan d m a rk ”) an d Tap co Un d erwri ters

, In c. (“ T ap co ”) (co l l ect iv el y

, t h e

“ d efen d an t s ”). 1

1 St ev en Green b erg was o ri g i n al l y a p art y t o t h i s cas e as a defen d an t

. H o wev er,

d u ri n g t h e p en den cy o f t hi s ap p eal

, Po p h am an d Green b erg reach ed a s et tl em en t

, an d

Green b erg was wi t h drawn as a p art y

. As d i s cu s sed m o re fu l l y b el o w, Green b erg ’ s

act i vi t i es

, i n cl u d i n g fi l in g s an d s t at em en t s m ad e d u ri n g th e p en den cy o f t h i s

l i t i g a t i o n

, are g erm an e t o t h e i s s u es pres en t ed in t hi s ap peal

. Ho wev er, d u e t o

Green b erg ’ s di s m i s s al p ri o r t o th e ren d eri n g o f t h is d eci s i o n

, we wi ll n o t ad d res s t h e

m eri t s o f an y o f Po p h am ’ s cl ai m s ag a i n s t G reen berg o r th e p ro p ri et y o f t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s ru l i n gs o n t h o s e cl ai m s

.Su m

m ary ju d g m en t is p ro p er wh en t h ere i s n o gen u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e ri al fact

an d t h e m o v an t i s en ti t l ed t o ju d g m en t as a m at ter o f l aw. OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (c). W e

rev i ew a g ran t o f s u m

m ary j u d gm en t d e n o vo an d co n s t ru e t h e ev i d en ce in t h e l i g ht

m o st fav orab l e t o t h e n on m o v an t

. Ho me Bu i ld er s As s ’n o f S a va n n a h, In c. v. Ch a t h a m

Ct y. , 2 7 6 Ga. 2 4 3 , 2 4 5 (1 ) (5 7 7 SE2 d 5 6 4 ) (2 0 0 3 ).

So co n s t ru ed

, th e reco rd s h o ws t h at Po p h am co n t act ed i n dep en d en t i n s u ran ce

ag en t St ev en Gree nbe r g ( “ G r e e nbe r g ”) t o o b t ai n a n ew co m m erci al l i ab i l i t y i n s u ran ce

p olic y f or his t r e e rem o v al b u si n es s

. A ft er co n t act i ng s ev eral u n d erwri ters

, G reen b erg

o b t ai n ed an i n su ran ce q u o t e fo r Po p h am fro m Tap co

, an u n d e r w r i t e r t h at h ad t h e

au t h o ri t y t o i s s ue i n s u ran ce p o l i ci es o n b eh al f o f L a n d m ark

. Po p h am m et wi th

Green b erg o n No v em

b er 17

, 2 0 1 0 at w h i c h t i m e P o p h am si g n ed an ap p l i cat i o n fo r

i n s u ran ce an d pai d a do wn p ay m en t on t he p rem i u m t o Green b erg

. Po p ham recei v ed

a cert i fi cat e of i n su ran ce fro m G r e e n b e r g s h o wi n g a p o l i cy effect i ve d at e o f

No v em b er 1 7

, 2 0 1 0

.

Tap co i s s u ed a b i n d er t o Po p h am st at i ng t h at i t wo u l d p r o v i d e t em p o rary

i n s u ran ce co v erag e u n t i l N o v em b er 2 9

, 2 01 0

, p ro v i d ed t h at Tap co “ recei v e[d ] a

p ro p erl y co m

p l et ed ap p li cat i o n an d a p rem i u m p ay m en t wi th i n 1 2 d a ys

. ” Per t h e

t erm s o f t h e b i n d er, Po p h am ’s fai l u re t o rem i t a co m pl et ed ap pl i cat io n an d t h e

2p rem i u m p ay m en t t o Tap co b y t h at d at e w o u l d n u ll i fy an d v o i d c o v erag e. Th e

l an g u ag e o f t h e b i n d er al s o p ro v i d ed t h at t h e b i n d er

“ ex i s t s o n i t s o wn t erm s an d ex p i res o n i t s o wn t e r m s

. Wh e n a b i nd er

ex p i res o n i ts ow n t erm s

, n o co v erag e ex i s t s t h ereaft er. Req u irem en ts fo r

n o t i ce o f can cel lat i o n t o i n s u red s d o n o t ap p l y t o ex p i red b in der.”

In d ep o s i t i o n

, b o t h Green b erg an d Po p ham st at ed t h at t h ey each u n d ers t o o d t h at t h e

p rem i u m p ay m en t h ad t o b e p ai d b y No v em b er 2 9 , 2 0 1 0

.

On No v em

b er 2 9

, Po p h am m et wi t h Green b e r g t o m ak e an o th er prem i u m

p ay m en t

, an d G reen b e r g m ai l ed a prem i um ch eck an d Po p h am ’ s i n s u ran ce

ap p li cat io n t o Tap co ei t h er t h at d ay o r t h e fo l l o wi n g d ay

. Ho w ev er, i t i s u n d i s p u t ed

t h at T ap co d i d n ot recei v e t h e p rem i u m p ay m en t an d t h e ap p l i cat i o n b y No v em b er 2 9,

2 0 1 0

.

On Decem

ber 7

, 2 0 1 0

, Tap co no t i fi ed Green b erg t h at i t h ad n o t recei v ed t h e

ap p li cat io n an d p rem i u m ch eck fo r Po p h am ’ s p o l i cy an d t h at t h e b i n d er was n u l l an d

v o i d

. Two d ay s l at er, o n D e c e m b e r 9

, 2 01 0

, Tap co recei v ed Green b erg ’ s m ai l i n g

co n tai n i n g t h e ap p l i cat i o n an d th e p rem i u m ch eck an d dep o si t ed th e ch eck t h at d ay

.

Th e fo l l owi n g d ay

, Tap co i nfo rm ed Green berg t h at ad d i t i o n al ap p l i cat i o n m at eri al s

were req u i red t o i s s u e th e i n s uran ce p o l i cy an d t h at th e p ol icy ’ s effect i v e d at e wo u ld

3b e Decem

b er 9

, 20 1 0

. Green b erg fax ed t h e ad d i ti o n al m at eri al s to Tap co

, an d Tap co

,

act i ng o n b eh al f o f Lan d m ark

, wro t e a n i n s u ran ce p o l i cy fo r Po ph am wi t h an

effect i v e d at e o f Decem

ber 9 , 2 0 1 0

.

M ean wh i l e, o n Dece m

b e r 1

, 2 0 1 0, Po p h am was cu t ti n g t rees wi t h t wo o t h er

m en p res en t

. On e of t h e o t h er m en was s eri o u s l y in ju red aft er a tree fel l o n h i m

. Th e

i n ju red m an b ro u g h t s u i t ag ai n s t Po p h am in l at e 2 0 1 1 an d wo n a d efau l t ju d g m en t

ag ai n s t hi m i n earl y 2 0 12 aft er Po p h am fai l ed t o res p o n d t o t h e s u i t. Po p h am l at er

fi led an i n s u ran ce cl ai m wi t h Lan dm ark

, wh i ch it d en i ed

, s t at i n g t h at n o p ol i cy was

i n effect o n t h e d at e o f t h e acci d en t

.

On No v em

b er 1 7

, 2 0 14

, Po p h am fi led s u it ag ai n s t t h e d efen d an t s

, al l eg i n g

n eg li g en ce, 2 breach o f co n tract

, an d fai l u re t o p ay an i ns u ran ce cl ai m i n b ad fai t h.

Po p h am al so s o ug h t pu n i t i v e d am ag es an d at t o rn ey fees fro m t h e d efen d an t s

. Th e

t ri al co u rt gran t e d m o t i o n s fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f t h e d efen d an t s wi th

res p ect t o al l cl ai m s, an d t h i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

2 P o p h am p led co u nt s o f n eg li g en ce ag ai n s t Tap co fo r fai l i n g to i n fo rm Popha m

t h at h i s b i n d er h ad been w i t hd rawn

, an d ag ai n s t b o t h d efen dan t s fo r fai li n g t o i n s u re

h i m

. A s m o re fu l l y set fo rt h, i n f r a

, ou r o n ly co n s i d erat i o n as to t h o s e c l a i m s i s in

reg ard to wh et h er t h e s t at ut e-o f-l i m i t at i o n s defen s e was t im el y rai s ed b y L an d m ark

.

4In h i s b ri ef befo re t hi s Co u rt

, Po p h am en um erat es s ev eral al l eg ed erro rs i n t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g

. Fi rs t

, h e arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n ru l i n g t h at t h ere was

n o ag en cy re l a t i o n s h i p fo rm ed b et ween Green b erg an d Tap co o r Green b erg an d

Lan dm ark

. Seco nd

, Po p h am cl ai m s t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n fi n d i ng t h at n o i n s u ran ce

co n tract ex i s ted b et w e e n P o p h am an d ei t h er Tap co o r Lan d m ark at t h e t i m e o f t h e

Decem b er 1

, 2 0 1 0

, a c c i d en t

. Th i rd

, Po ph am cl ai m s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred in

al l o wi n g Lan d m ark t o am en d it s an s wer t o as s ert a st at u t e-o f-l i m i t at i o ns d efen s e to

h i s p ers o nal in

j u ry cl ai m s aft er t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s s ch ed u l i n g ord er d ead l i n e. D eri v at i v e

o f t h o s e ru l i n g s

, Po p ham cl ai m s t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n gran t i ng s u m m ary ju d g m en t

o n h i s b ad fai t h cl ai m s an d h i s cl ai m s fo r p un i t i v e d am ag es an d at t o rn ey fees

.

As Po p h am has fai l ed t o b ri n g fo rt h su ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o s u p p o rt h i s cl ai m s

,

we affi rm t h e t ri al co u rt ’s g ran t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t w i th reg ard t o each

en u m erat i o n ab o v e. Ad d i t io n al l y

, we h ol d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e i t s

d i s cret i o n i n perm it t i n g L an d m ark t o a m e n d i t s p l ead i n g s t o rai se a s t at u t e-o fl i m i tat i on s d efen s e, as Po ph am fai l ed t o dem o n st rat e p reju d i ce res u l t in g fro m t h at

d eci s i o n

.

1

. As a th res h o l d m at ter, Po p h am cl ai m s t h e tri al co u rt erred i n fi nd i n g t h at n o

ag en cy rel at i o n s h i p ex i s t ed b et ween Green b erg an d Tap co o r b et w een Green b erg an d

5Lan dm ark

. H e arg u es th at Green b erg was act i n g as an ag en t f o r T a p c o an d / o r

Lan dm ark

, an d t h at t h erefo re g en u i n e i ss u es o f fact ex is t as t o wh et h er an i n s u ran ce

co n tract b et ween Po p h am an d Tap co an d / o r Lan d m ark w as i n effect at t h e t im e o f t h e

Decem b er 1 , 2 0 1 0, acci d en t.

Th e p l ai n t i ff h as th e b u rd en o f bri n g in g f o r t h e vi d en ce es t ab l i s h i n g t h e

ex i s t en ce o f th e ag en cy rel at io ns h i p. Ha n dy v. DeKa l b Med

. Ct r

., In c.

, 2 9 8 G a. Ap p.

8 2

, 8 2 (6 79 SE2 d 1 0 7 ) (2 0 0 9 ). Un der G eo rg i a l aw, “ [i ] nd ep en d en t i ns u ran ce ag en t s

o r b ro k ers are gen eral l y co ns i d ered th e ag en t o f t h e i n s u red

, no t t h e i n s u rer.”

Eu r o p ea n B a ker

s

, Lt d

. v. Ho l m a n

, 1 7 7 Ga. Ap p

. 1 72

, 1 7 3 -7 4 (2 ) (3 3 8 SE2 d 7 0 2 )

( 1 985) ( c i ta t i o n o m i t t ed ). An i n d ep en d en t i n s uran ce ag en t wi l l be co ns i d ered an a ge nt

o f t h e in s u rer i f th e p l ai nt iff b ri n g s fo rt h ev i d en ce t h at t h e i n s u rer g ran t ed t h e ag en t

o r b ro k er “ au th o ri t y t o b in d co v erag e o n t h e i ns u rer’ s b eh al f.” Ki n a r d v. Na t ’l In d em.

Co

. , 22 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 7 6

, 1 78 (1 ) (4 8 3 SE2 d 6 64 ) (1 9 9 7 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ).

Al t ern at i v el y

, i f an i n s u rer h o l d s o u t an i n d ep en d en t ag en t as i t s ag en t an d an i n s u red

ju s t ifi ab l y rel i es o n s uch rep res en t at i o n

, t h e i nd ep en d en t ag en t wi l l b e co n s id ered t h e

ag en t o f t h e i n s urer. S

ee Ki r b y v. Nw. Na t ’l Ca s

. Co

. , 2 1 3 Ga. Ap p. 6 7 3, 6 7 8 (4 4 5

SE2 d 7 9 1) (1 9 9 4) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

6(a) W e m u s t fi rs t d et erm in e i f t h ere i s an i s s u e of fact as t o wh et her G reen b erg

was g i v en au t ho ri t y by Tap co an d / o r Lan dm ark t o b i n d i n s u ran ce p o l i ci es o n t h ei r

b eh al f.

Green b erg i nd i cat ed i n h i s d ep o s it i on t h at h e w as act i n g a s an ag en t fo r

Po p h am i n b i dd i n g o ut h i s req u es t fo r li ab il i ty i n s u ra n ce co v erag e t o m u l t i p l e

u n d erwri t ers

, i n cl ud i n g Tap co

. He t es ti fi ed t h at h e was n ot an ag en t o r em p l o y ee o f

Lan dm ark an d h ad n o c on t ract wi th Lan dm ark

. Green b erg cl ai m ed t hat h e d i d n ot

h av e t h e au t h o ri t y t o is s u e a b i n d er o r an i n s u r a n ce p o l i cy o n b eh al f o f Tap co o r

Lan dm ark

. Bo th Tap co an d Lan d m ark rep eat ed l y d en i ed t h at Green b erg h ad ev er

b een th ei r ag en t

.

D es p i t e t hes e s t at em en t s, Po p h am arg ues t h at o t her s t at em en t s b y G reen b erg

an d h i s co u n s el s u g g es t Green b erg h ad t he au t h o ri t y t o b i n d Tap co

. Po p h am

s p eci fi cal l y p o i n t s t o s t at em en t s b y Green b erg th at h e was a “ s u bag en t ” o f Tap co an d

h ad “ b ro k erag e ag reem en t s” wi t h T ap co

, 3 as wel l as a s t at em en t b y Green b erg ’ s

3 Green b erg s t at ed i n h i s d ep o s i t i o n t hat h e h as “ b ro k erag e ag reem en t s ” wi th

s ev eral i n s u ran ce co m

pan i es an d t h at he i s “ l i k e a s ub ag en t .” He st at ed

, wi t h res p ect

t o Tap co

, t h at t h e ag reem en t i s “ an au t ho ri t y t o d o b u si nes s w i t h th em ” an d t h at h e

i s “ n o t an em

pl o y ee o f t hei rs .” Rat h er h e i s a “ co n t ract o r” an d a “ s u b ag en t .” He wen t

o n t o t es t i fy t h at h e has t h e au t ho ri ty “ to d o b us i n es s wi t h t h em [p res u m ab l y

, Tap co ]

, b u t n o t to d o bu s i n es s wi th t h e [i n s uran ce] co m p an i es d i rect l y

. ” In h i s wo rd s

, “ [Tap co

ch o os es ] t h e [i n s u ran ce] co m pa n y ” b y g i v i n g Green b erg an i n s u ran ce q u ot e th at “ b es t

7co u ns el i n op en co u rt t h at Green b erg was an ag en t of T ap co

. 4 Po p h am co n t en d s t h at

t h es e s t at em e n t s c a n n o t b e i g n o red b y t h e t ri al co u rt an d arg u es t h at t h ey are

s u ffi ci en t t o s h ow a t ri ab l e i s s u e o f fact as t o w h et h er G reen b erg h ad t h e au t h o ri t y to

b i n d Tap co an d Lan d m ark

. 5 W e d i s ag ree.

Th e i n q u i r y h ere is n o t w h et h er Green b erg b el i ev es h i m s el f t o b e an “ ag en t ”

o r “ s u b ag en t ” of Tap co o r Lan d m ark o r h o w h e ch aract eri zes h i s rel at i o n s h i p wi th

t h o s e en t i t i es

. Rat her, th e i n q ui ry i n th i s cas e i s wh et h er h e h ad act u al l y b een g ran t ed

fi ts t h e ri s k fo r t h e t y

p e o f i n s u ran ce t hat ’ s n eed ed .” H e a l s o i n d i cat ed t hat Tap co

g i v es h i m t h e au t ho ri t y to fi l l o u t cu s t om er ap p l i cat i o n s “ an d t h e s u p p l e m e n t s t h at

t h ey n eed an d t h e t erro ri s m

fo rm .”

4 In t h e h eari n g

, t he ju d g e as k ed Gre en b erg ’ s co u ns el

, “ So M r. Green b erg ’ s

p o s i t i on is h e was act i n g as t h e ag en t fo r Tap co ; i s t hat co rrect ? ” G reen berg ’ s co u n s el

rep l i ed , “ Th at i s co rrect .”

5 Po p h am ci t es t hi s Co u rt ’ s ru l i n g i n Na t ’l Pr o p

. Own er s In s

. Co

. v. W

el l s

, 1 6 6

Ga. Ap p

. 2 8 1 ( 3 0 4 SE2 d 4 5 8 ) (1 98 3 ) i n s u p p ort o f t h is p ro p o s i t i o n

. Ho wev er, h i s

rel i an ce on W

el l s is m i sp l aced

. In W

el l s

, t he p l ai n ti ff’ s co m

p l ai n t as s ert ed an ag en cy

rel at i o n s h i p b et w een an i n d ep en d en t i n s uran ce ag en t an d an i n s u rer. W el l s

, 1 6 6 Ga.

Ap p

. at 2 8 1

. Th e i n s u rer d en ied t h e ex i st en ce of t h e ag en cy rel at i o n sh i p al l eg ed b y

p l ai n t i ff i n an affi d av it s ub m i t t ed b y o n es of i t s o f f i c e rs

, b u t n o o th er ev i d en ce

reg ard i n g an ag en cy rel at i o n sh i p was b ro u g h t fo rward b y t h e p l ai n t i ff o r t h e i n s u rer

p ri o r t o th e i n s u rer’ s s u m

m ary ju d g m en t m o t i on

. Id

. Th i s Co u rt fo u nd t hat t h e d en i al

i n t h e affi d av i t “ pi erced t h e p lai n t i ff’ s p l ead i n g s an d p l ace d o n h i m t h e b u rd en o f

s h o wi n g t h e fact of ag en cy .” Id

. a t 2 8 2

. W el l s t h u s s p eak s o nl y t o wh at ev i d en ce i s

s u ffi ci en t fo r a def

en d a n t t o s u p p o rt i t s m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t on an ag en cy

cl ai m

, an d

, cri t i cal ly

, do es n o t p u rp o rt t o es t ab l i sh wh at ev i d en ce i s s u ffi ci en t to

s at i s fy th e pl a i n t i

f f ’s b u rd en o f b ri n g i ng fo rt h ev id en ce t o s u p p ort i t s cl ai m

. Id

. at 2 8 2

8t h e “ au th o ri t y t o b i n d co v erag e o n t h e i n s u rer’ s b eh al f.” Ki n a rd 2 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 7 8;

s ee a l s o At l a n t a Mkt

. Ct r

. Mg mt

. Co

. v. McLa n e

, 2 6 9 Ga. 6 04

, 6 0 6 -0 7 ( 1 ) ( a) (5 0 3

S E2 d 27 8 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (ev i d en ce o f a rel at i o n s h i p b et ween t he p u rp o rt ed p ri n ci p al a n d

ag en t i s i n s u ffi ci en t wh ere t h ere is n o ev i d en ce o f ag en t ’ s au th o ri t y t o creat e

o b l i g at i o ns o n b eh al f o f t he p ri n ci p al ).

Im p o rt an t l y

, t h e l ab el o r ch aract eri zat io n o f t he rel at i o ns h ip b y t h e pu rp o rt ed

ag en t i s n o t s u ffi ci en t t o s ho w wh at act u al au t h o ri ty t h e ag en t h ad been g i v en b y t h e

p u rp ort ed p ri n ci pal

. Ki r b

y, 21 3 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 7 7 -7 8 ; cf

. Jen net t e v. Na t ’l Co mmu n i t y

D e v

. S er vi ces

, In c

., 2 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. 2 2 1

, 2 23 (2 ) (5 2 0 SE2 d 2 3 1 ) (1 9 9 9) (n o t i n g t h a t

l ab el in g t h e p u rp o rt ed ag en t as an “ i n d ep en d en t co n t ract o r ” w a s n o t di s p o s i t i v e to

ag en cy an al y s is ). In Ki r b

y

, an em p lo y ee of an i nd ep en d en t i n s uran ce ag en t i n d i cat ed

i n an affi d av i t t h at he an d hi s co m p an y were ag en t s o f t h e i n s urer. Ki r b y

, 2 1 3 Ga.

Ap p

. at 6 7 5

. Th i s Co u rt ru l ed t hat d es p it e t h e em p l o y ee’ s “ in i ti al rep res en t at i o n t h at

h e was a n a g e n t o f [t h e i n s u rer] ” i n h i s affi d av it

, t h ere was “ n o ev i d en ce t o t h at

effect .” Id

. at 67 8 (2 ). Ki r b y t hu s m ak es cl ear th at o n su m m ary j u d gm en t

, p l ai n t i ff

m u st co m e fo rward wi t h ev i d en ce t h at t h e i n s urer g r an t ed au t h o ri t y to th e al l eg ed

ag en t an d can n o t rel y

o n co n cl u s ory

s t at em en ts b y

t he al leg ed ag en t

.

9Wh i l e Po ph am fi xat es on t h e u s e o f t h e t erm s “ ag en t ” an d “ su b ag en t ” b y

Green b erg an d h is co u n s el

, t ho s e s t at em en t s d o n ot s p eak to an y au t h o ri t y o n

Green b erg ’ s p a rt to b i n d Tap co o r Lan d m ark to an i ns u ran ce po l i cy

, an d t h e

d efen d an t s u n eq u i v o cal l y d en y t h a t G r e e n b erg h as t h i s au t h ori t y el s ewh ere i n t h e

reco rd

. 6 W e t hu s ag ree w i th th e t ri al co u rt t h at Po p h am h as n ot b ro ug h t fo rward

ev i d en ce t h at G reen berg was ex p res s l y gran t ed t h e au th o ri t y t o b i n d co v erag e o n

b eh al f o f Tap co o r Lan d m ark

.

(b ) W e m u st al s o co n s i d e r w h et her Green b erg h ad t h e ap p aren t au t h o ri t y to

b i n d Tap co o r Lan d m ark

. To pro v e ap p aren t ag en cy

, “ t h e ev i d e n c e m u s t sh o w: (1 )

t h e ap p aren t pri nci p al rep res en t ed or h el d o u t t h e ap p aren t ag en t ; an d (2 ) ju s t i fi ab l e

rel i an ce u p o n t h e rep res en t at i o n l e d t o t h e i n ju ry .” Ki r b

y

, 21 3 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 7 8 (2 )

(ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ).

H e r e

, L an dm ark s tat ed t h at i t h ad n o co nt act wi t h Po p h am o r G reen b er g

t h ro u g h ou t t he i n s u ran ce ap p l i cat i o n p ro ces s.

. M o reo v er, t h e reco rd i s d ev oi d o f an y

6 No t ab l y

, i n th e sam e co ll o q u y at t h e m o t i o n h eari n g

, Green b erg ’ s co un s el was

as k ed b y t h e co u rt

, “ [Green berg ] can ’ t b i n d i n s u ran ce on b eh al f o f Tap co

. He d o es n ’ t

h av e t h at au t ho ri t y ? ” Green b erg ’ s co u n s el rep l i ed “ He s en d s t h e i n s u ran ce p o l i ci es

b ack to Tap co an d t h en t h ey b in d .”

10ev i d en ce t h at T a p c o o r L an d m ark ev er h el d o ut Green b erg as an ag en t wi t h t h e

au t h o ri t y t o b i n d t h em t o an i n su ran ce co n t ract

.

P o p h am n o t es t hat Green b erg p ro v i d ed h i m wi t h a cert i fi cat e o f i ns u ran c e

s h o wi n g th at h e h ad i n s u ran ce co v erag e fro m L an d m ark b eg i n n in g o n No vem b er 1 7,

2 0 1 0

, an d arg ues t h at t h i s i m p l i ed Green berg was wo rk i n g o n beh al f o f Tap co o r

Lan dm ark

. Ho wev er, act s o r s t at em en t s b y t h e al l eg ed ag en t, wi th no p ro of o f an y act

o n t he p art of t h e al l eg ed p ri n ci p al

, are i ns u ffi ci en t t o creat e an i m p l ied ag en cy

rel at i o n s h i p

. Am. M

f r

. Mu t. In s

. Co

. v. E A Tech

. Ser v.

, 2 7 0 Ga. Ap p

. 8 8 3, 88 7 (6 0 8

SE2 d 2 7 5 ) (2 00 4 ); H

o wa r d v. S t

. Pa u l Fi r e & Ma r i ne In s

. Co

. , 18 0 Ga. Ap p

. 8 0 2

, 8 0 4

(3 5 0 SE2 d 7 76 ) (1 9 8 6). As th is Co u rt d i s cu s s ed i n Ho wa r d

, “ wh ere t h e o n l y ev i d en ce

t h at a p e r s o n i s an ag en t o f an ot h er p art y i s t h e m ere as s u m p ti o n t h at s u ch ag en cy

ex i s t ed

, o r an i n feren ce d rawn fro m t h e act i on s o f t h at p ers o n t h at h e was an ag en t o f

an o th er p art y

, s uch ev i d en ce h as n o p ro bat i v e v al u e an d i s i n s uffi ci en t t o au t h o ri ze

a fi n di n g t h at su ch an ag en cy ex i s t s .” Ho wa r d

, 18 0 Ga. A p p

. at 8 04 (c i t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ). W i t h reg ard t o cert i fi cat es o f i n su ran ce s p eci fi cal l y

, wh ere

t h ere i s n o ev i den ce t h at th e al l eg ed p ri n ci p al h as h el d a p ers on ou t as i t s ag en t

, “ a

cert ifi cat e of i n s uran ce, st an d i n g al o n e, i s in s u ffi ci en t to au t h o ri ze a fi n d i n g t h at t h e

ag en cy i s t h e ag en t o f t h e carri er.” E A Tech . S er v. , 2 7 0 Ga. Ap p . at 8 8 7 (2 ).

11W e t h u s ag ree wi th t h e t ri al co u rt t h at Po p h am fai l ed t o b ri n g fo rt h ev i d en ce

t h at Green b erg h ad t h e ap paren t au t h o ri t y t o b in d Tap co o r Lan d m ark t o an i n s u ran ce

p o l icy

. Hav i n g al read y ag reed t h at Green b erg l ack ed t h e act u al au th o ri t y t o b i n d

Tap co o r Lan dm ark to co n t ract s o f i n s u ran ce, w e affi rm t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

d et erm i n at i o n t h at Green b erg was n ot an ag en t o f Tap co o r Lan d m ark

.

2

. Po p h am nex t cl ai m s th at ev en i f G reen berg d i d n o t h av e t h e au t h o ri t y t o b i n d

Tap co o r Lan d m ark

, t h ere rem ai n s a t ri ab l e q u es t i o n o f fact as to wh et h er an

i n s u ran ce co n t ract bet ween Po p h a m a n d Tap co o r Lan d m ark was fo rm ed an d l at er

b reach ed . W e d i s ag ree.

Un d er Geo rg i a l aw, an i ns u ran ce b i n der i s a co n t ract fo r t em po rary i n s u ran ce

p en di n g t h e i s s u an ce o f a fo rm al i ns u ran ce po l i cy

, an d b o t h t h e b i n d er an d an y

s u b s eq u en t i ns uran ce p o l i cy are g o v ern ed by co n t ract l aw. S ee McDu f f i e v. Cr i t er i o n

Ca s

. Co

. , 2 1 4 Ga. Ap p

. 8 1 8

, 8 1 9 -2 0 (4 4 9 SE2 d 1 3 3 ) (1 9 9 4); OCGA § 3 3 -2 4 -3 3 (a).

Part ies to an i n s u ran ce co n t ract are “ b o u n d b y i t s p l ai n an d u nam b ig u o u s t erm s ,” 7 an d

“ [w] h ere t h e co n t ract u al l an g uag e u n am b ig u o u s l y go ve r

ns the f a ct ual s cen ari o b efo re

t h e co u rt

, t h e co u rt ’ s jo b is s i m p l y t o ap p l y th e t erm s o f t h e co n t ract as wri t t en

. . . .”

7 Ha ys v. Ga

. Fa rm B u r ea u Mu t

. In s

. Co

. , 3 1 4 Ga. A p p

. 1 10

, 1 1 1 (1 ) (7 2 2 SE2 d

9 2 3 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

12Reed v. Au t o -Own er s In s

. Co

. , 2 8 4 Ga. 2 8 6

, 2 8 7 (2 ) (6 6 7 SE2 d 9 0 ) (2 0 0 8) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ).

Here, t h e i n s u ran ce bi nd er cl earl y s t at ed t h at co v erag e u n d e r th e t em p o rary

p o l i cy wo u l d b e d eem ed n u l l an d v o i d i f p ay m en t o f t h e p rem i u m was n ot recei v ed

b y Tap co b y No v em

b er 2 9

, 2 0 1 0

. 8 Acco rd i ng l y

, i n terp ret at i o n o f t h at p ro v is i o n o f t h e

b i n d er w as a q ues ti o n of l aw t h at was pro p erl y ru l ed u p o n by t he t ri al co u rt

, 9 an d t h e

o n l y fact u al d et erm i nat i o n reg ard i n g s u ch cl ai m w as w h et h er s u c h p ay m en t was

recei v ed by Tap co b y t hat d at e. As i t i s u n d i s p u t ed t h at t h e pay m en t was no t recei v ed

b y t h e dead l i ne, ap pl y i n g t he cl ear t erm s o f th e bi n d er, i t ex p i red o n i t s o wn t erm s

,

an d t h ere was n o co v erag e u n d er i t t h ereaft er. 1 0

8 W e n ot e t h at b i n d ers m ay

, b y t h ei r “ cl ear an d ex pres s t erm s

, ” ad d t o t erm s o f

an i n s u ra n ce po l i cy

. S

ee OCGA § 3 3 -2 4 -3 3(a). Th i s in cl u d es th e ab i l i t y t o ad d

co n di t i o n s p reced en t t o l i ab i li t y o n t h e p art o f t he i n s urer i n t h e term s o f t h e b i n d er.

S ee S w. Li f e In s

. Co

. v. Mi dd l e G a

. Neu r o l o g i ca l Sp eci a li s ts

, 2 62 Ga. 2 7 3

, 2 7 4 -7 5 (1 )

(4 1 6 SE2 d 4 9 6 ) (1 9 9 2 ) an d McDu f f i e

, 2 1 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 2 0 (“ an i ns u ran ce co m p an y

m ay fi x t h e t erm s o f it s

. . . b i nd ers as i t wi sh es

. . . .”)

. Su ch co n di t i o n s p r e c e d en t

m ay i n cl u d e recei p t o f req u i red p ay m en t s b y a d at e cert ai n. Id

.

9 Ha ys , 3 1 4 Ga. Ap p . at 1 1 1

.

1 0 Po p h am al s o a s s e r t s t h at

, t h ro u g h ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e “ m ai l b ox ru l e,” a ju ry

co u ld fi n d t h at G reen b erg h ad m ai l ed th e p ay m en t an d ap p l i cat i o n o n t h e d ay t h ey

were d u e an d t hat

, as s u ch

, t h e b i n d er d i d no t l ap s e. S ee OCGA 1 3 -3 -3

. W e d i s ag ree

t h at ap p l i cat io n o f t h at ru l e i s warran t ed b y t h i s cas e. Becau s e t h e bi n der s tat es t h at

t h e ap p li cat i o n an d p ay m en t were t o b e recei v ed b y Tap co b y No v em b er 2 9

, 2 0 1 0,

13W h en t h e m o vi n g p art y can d em o n st rat e t h at t h ere i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e o f

m at eri al fact “ b y ei t h er p res en t i n g ev id en ce n eg at i ng an es s en t i al el em en t o f t h e

p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m s o r es t ab l i s h i n g fro m t h e reco rd an ab s en ce o f ev i d en ce t o s u p p o rt

s u ch cl ai m s,” s um m ary ju d g m en t i s p ro p er. Og l et ho r p e Dev. Gr o up v. Co l ema n

, 2 7 1

Ga. 1 7 3

, 1 7 3 (1 ) (5 1 6 SE2 d 53 1 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). As t h e u n d i s p u t ed fact s

s h o w t h at t h e b i n d er ex p i red o n No v em b er 29

, 20 1 0 , we ag ree wi t h t he t ri al co urt ’ s

ru l i n g t h at n o co n t ract fo r i n su ran ce was in effect at t h e t i m e o f t h e acci d en t o n

Decem b er 1 , 2 0 1 0.

3

. Po p h a m a l s o cl ai m s t h e t ri al co u rt ab u s ed i t s d is cret i o n b y p erm i t t i n g

Lan dm ark t o am en d i t s an s w er t o rai s e a st at ut e-o f-l i m i t at i o n s d efen se t o Po p h am ’ s

p ers o n al i n

ju ry cl ai m s aft er t h e en t ry

o f t h e p re-t ri al o rd er. 1 1 W e d i s ag ree.

we ag ree wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt t h at t erm s p l ai n l y an d un am b i gu o us l y s et fo rt h t h e t erm s

u n d er wh i ch t h e b in d er wo u l d b e ren dered n u l l an d vo i d

. Th u s

, n o fact u al i s su e ari s es

as t o wh at act io n b y th e p lai n t i ff was n ece s s a r y t o co m pl y wi t h t h e t erm s o f t h e

b i n d er. S ee Ca rt er o s a

, Lt d

. v. Gen er a l S t a r In dem. Co

. , 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 4 6

, 2 4 8 -4 9 (1 )

(4 8 9 SE2 d 8 3 ) ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ) (n o ti n g th at t h e o ffero r m ay sp eci fy t h e

m et h o d t h ro u g h wh i ch t h e o ffer m u s t b e accep t ed

, i n cl u d i n g t h ro u g h an “ act ”) an d

Ro wn t r ee Br o s

. v. Bu s h

, 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 3 76

, 3 7 6 (1 1 1 SE 2 1 7 ) (1 9 2 2 ) (n o ti n g res o rt to

“ m ai l bo x ru l e” o n l y wh en an o ffer is m ad e “ w i t ho u t s t at i n g h o w t h e accep t an ce s h al l

b e co m m u n i cat ed

. ”).

1 1 Here, we n o te t h at s u m

m ary ju d g m en t was g ran t ed t o Lan dm ark fo r cert ai n

cl ai m s bas ed on t h e ru n n i n g o f t h e s t at u te o f l i m i t at i o n s

. Po p ham o n l y arg ues t h at t h e

s t at u te-o f-l i m i t at io ns d efen s e w as n o t pro p erl y rai sed by Lan d m ark an d d o es n ot

14Here, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered a s ch ed u l i n g o rd er fo r t h e cas e o n M arch 9

, 2 0 1 5,

t h at pro v i d ed th at t h e p a r t i e s ’ p l ead i n g s co u l d b e am en d ed u n t i l J ul y 1 1

, 2 0 1 5

. 1 2

Tap co h ad rai s ed a st at u te-o f-l i m i t at i o n s d efen s e i n it s an s wer, an d wh i l e h e was s t i l l

a p art y t o t h i s l i t i g at i o n

, Green b erg am en d ed h is an s wer t o d o s o wi t h p art i cu l a ri t y

o n Au g u s t 2 1

, 2 0 1 5

. 1 3 Lan d m ark fi l ed an am en ded an s wer r a i s i n g t h e s t at u t e-o fl i m i tat i on s d efen s e o n Decem b er 1 5

, 2 01 5

, o v er t wo m o n t h s aft er i t fi l ed it s m o t i o n

fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

.

W h i l e a d efen dan t h as t h e ri g ht t o am en d i t s p l ead i n g s t o i n cl u d e affi rm at i v e

d efen s es at an y

t i m e b efo re t h e en t ry

o f a p re-t ri al o rd er, a p art y m u s t s eek l eav e o f

t h e co u rt t o d o s o aft er t h e en t ry o f t h e o rd er. S ee OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (a). In d et erm i n i n g

wh et h er t o g ran t s u ch a req u es t aft er t h e en t ry o f a s ch ed u li ng ord er, t h e t ri al co u rt

h as t h e p o wer t o “ am en d an d co n t ro l i t s p ro ces ses an d o rd ers

, s o a s to m ak e t h em

ch al l en g e t h e ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e l i m i t at i o ns p eri o d.

1 2 In i t s o rd er g ran t i n g su m m ary ju d g m en t

, t h e tri al co urt n o ted t h at it s M arch

9 , 2 01 5 s ch ed u l i n g o rd er was t reat ed as a p re-t ri al o rd er.

1 3 Green b erg ’ s o ri g i nal an s wer rai s ed t h e st at ut e-o f-l i m i t at i o n s d efen se o n l y by

m ak i n g referen ce t o “ al l

. . . affi rm at i v e d efen s es set fo rt h i n O.C.G.A. § 9 -1 1 -8 (c).”

Pl ai n t i ff ap p aren t l y d i d n o t co n t es t t h e d eci s i o n of t h e tri al co urt t o p erm i t G reen b erg

t o am en d h i s an swer aft er t h e d ead l i n e s tat ed i n t h e p re-t ri al o rd er.

15co m fo rm ab l e t o l aw an d ju s t i ce” OCGA § 1 5 -1 -3 (6 ), an d l eav e t o am en d p l ead i ng s

i s t o b e “ freel y

g i v en wh en ju s t i ce s o req ui res

. ” OCGA § 9 -1 1 -1 5 (a).

In d et erm in i n g wh et h er l eav e t o am en d an an s wer s h o u l d b e al l o wed aft er en t ry

o f a p re-t ri al o rd er, t ri al co u rt s m u s t b al an ce “ p os s i b l e u n fai r p reju d i ce t o t h e

n o n m o v i n g p art y wi t h t h e m o v an t ’ s reas o n s fo r d el ay

. ” Ro we Dev. Co r p . v. Aki n &

Fl a n der s, In c

., 2 4 0 G a. Ap p

. 7 6 6

, 76 9 (3 ) (5 25 SE2 d 1 2 3 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (ci tat i o n o m i t t ed ).

“ M ere d el ay i n s eek i n g l eav e t o am en d is n o t a su ffi ci en t reas o n fo r d en i al .” MCG

Dev. Co r p . v. Bi ck Rea l t

y Co

. , 1 4 0 Ga. Ap p. 4 1 , 4 3 (2 ) (2 3 0 SE2 d 2 6 ) (1 9 76 ).

Here, Po p h am h as fai l ed t o s ho w h o w h e was p reju d i ced b y t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

d eci s i o n

. In Ph il l i

p s v. S t a te F

a r m Mu t

. Au t o

. In s

. Co

. , t h i s Co urt n o ted t h at t h e

“ p u rp o s e o f t h e req u irem en t t h at affi rm at i v e d efen s es b e pl e a d e d i s to p rev en t

s u rp ri s e an d t o g iv e t h e o p p o s i n g p art y fai r n o t i ce o f wh at h e m u s t m eet as a d efen s e.”

1 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 3 42

, 3 4 6 (2 )(A) (1 7 3 SE2 d 7 2 3 ) (1 97 0 ) (ci t at i o ns o m i tt ed ). Becau s e

b o t h Tap co an d Green b erg h ad rai s ed t h e s tat u t e-o f-l i m i t at i o n s d efen s e b y t h e t i m e

Lan dm ark di d s o

, Po p h am was on no t i ce t h at t h e defen s e wo u ld b e co n si d ered b y t h e

t ri al co u rt

. In ad d i t i o n

, Po p h am ’ s cl ai m s aga inst Lan d m ark rel at ed t o t h e s am e g en eral

b o d y of fact s as it s cl ai m s ag ai n s t Tap co an d Green b erg

, an d s i m i lar ev i d en ce wo u ld

16b e u t i l i zed b y Po p h am to r e spon d t o t h e as s ert io n o f t h e s t at u t e-o f-l i m i tat i o n s d efen s e,

reg ard l es s o f wh i ch p art y rai s ed i t

. 1 4

W e fai l t o s ee h o w Po p ham w as p reju d i ced b y t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n to

p erm i t Lan d m ark t o rai s e t h e d efen s e. W h i l e it i s cl earl y des i rab l e fo r a d efen d an t to

rai s e i t s affi rm at i v e d efen s es at t h e earl i es t p o s s i b l e ju n ct u re, G eo rg i a l aw g ran t s t ri al

ju d g es wi d e d i s cret io n t o co n du ct t h e b us i n es s o f t h ei r co u rt s

, i n cl u di n g es t ab l i s h i n g

an d rev i s i n g d ead l i nes fo r p re-t ri al fi l i n gs

. W e t h u s fi n d no erro r i n t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

d eci s i o n t o p erm i t Lan d m ark t o rai s e t h e s t at u t e-o f-l i m i tat i o n s d efen s e.

4

. Po p h am ’ s rem ai n i ng en u m erat io n s o f erro r reg ard i n g cl ai m s ag ai n s t Tap co

an d Lan dm ark fo r b ad fai th

, p u n i t iv e d am ag es

, an d at t o rn ey fees are m o o t ed b y t h i s

Co u rt ’ s ru l i n g s

, s up r a

. As we h av e u p h el d t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t h at nei t h er Tap co

n o r Lan d m a r k h a d a co nt ract o f i n s u ran ce wi t h Po p h am i n effect on t h e d at e o f t h e

acci den t

, n o b ad fai th cl ai m can b e as s ert ed ag ai n s t ei t h er d efen d an t fo r fai l u re t o p ay

a cl ai m ari s i n g fro m t hat acci d en t

. S ee La vo i Co r

p

. , In c. v. Na t’l Fi r e In s

. o

f H a r t f o r d

,

2 9 3 Ga. Ap p

. 1 4 2

, 1 4 6 (1 )(b ) (6 6 6 SE2 d 3 8 7 ) (2 0 08 ); OCGA § 3 3 -4 -6 (a). Si m i l arl y

,

1 4 S ee At l a n t a Fi r e Sys

., In c. v. Al exa n d er Un d er wr it er s Gen

. Ag en cy, In c.

, 1 8 5

Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 3

, 8 7 4 (3 6 6 SE2 d 1 9 7 ) (1 9 8 8 ) (o b ject in g p art y fai led t o sat i s fy t ri al co u rt

t h at i t was s u rp ri sed b y l at e i n cl u s i o n o f a cl ai m an d u np rep ared t o d efen d i t o n t h e

m eri t s becau s e i t h ad acces s t o do cu m en t s t h at were t h e b as i s of t he l at e cl ai m

t h ro u g h ou t t h e en t i re p en d en cy o f t he l aws u i t).

17award s of p u n i t i v e d am ag es an d at t o rn ey fees are d eri v at i v e of u nd erl y i n g cl ai m s

,

wh ere t h o s e cl ai m s fai l

, cl ai m s fo r p u n i t i v e d am ag es an d at to rn ey fees al s o fai l

. See

Nel s o n v. Gl yn n -Br un s wi ck Ho s

p

. Au t h

. , 25 7 Ga. Ap p

. 5 7 1

, 5 79 (5 ) (5 7 1 SE2 d 5 5 7 )

(2 0 0 4) (“ In acco rd an ce wi t h OCGA § 5 1-1 2 -5 .1

, p un i t i v e d am ag es c a n o n l y b e

a w a r d e d as ad d i t io n al d am ag es .”) an d Un i t ed Co s. Len d i n g Co r p

. v. Pea co ck

, 2 6 7 G a.

1 4 5

, 1 4 6 (2 ) (4 7 5 SE2 d 6 0 1 ) (1 9 9 6 ) (“ A p rereq u i s i t e to an y award o f at to rn ey fees

. . . i s t h e award o f

. . . rel i ef o n t h e un d erl y i n g cl ai m ”). Becau s e ea c h o f P o p h am ’ s

cl ai m s ag ai n s t Tap co an d Lan d m ark fai l as a m at t er of l aw, Po p ham can n ot reco v er

p u n i t i v e d am ag es o r at t o rn ey fees

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . McFa d

d en , P. J., a n d

McMi l l i a n , J., co n cu r

.

18