Opinion ID: 488140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: waiver of conditions of the insurance contract

Text: 22 The terms of the insurance policy provide: In case of loss, the named insured shall ... submit to the Company within (60) days after requested a signed, sworn statement of loss ... Wright's complaint alleges that he provided such a statement of loss. At trial, Commercial Union contended that neither a statement of loss nor an inventory of damaged personal property was provided as required by the policy. Wright's position at trial was that (1) Commercial Union never requested such documents 2 and (2) Commercial Union had waived the necessity of filing a statement of loss/inventory of personal property. 23 In briefs before this court, Commercial Union emphasizes that Wright relied upon a theory of waiver which was not set forth in the complaint. Here, no objection was made to the introduction of evidence regarding waiver of these policy requirements. Even had such an objection been made, the trial judge could have permitted Wright to amend the complaint so as to allege waiver by Commercial Union. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b). Commercial Union's claim that the verdict should be set aside because the proof at trial differed from the pleadings is therefore without merit. 24 Commercial Union also asserts that Wright has failed to present any evidence of conduct by Commercial Union which constitutes a waiver of the policy requirements. Under Georgia law, [w]aiver ... may be accomplished by conduct on the part of the insurer 'which would reasonably lead the insured to believe that strict compliance with the limitation provision would not be insisted upon.'  Brown v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 167 Ga.App. 84, 306 S.E.2d 62, 63 (1983) (quoting General Ins. Co. v. Lee Chocolate Co., 97 Ga.App. 588, 589, 103 S.E.2d 632, 633 (1958)). In the present case, a factual issue existed as to whether waiver had occurred. 25 Wright presented evidence showing that he complied with every request made by the insurance company. He promptly notified the company of the damage to the building. Accordingly, Commercial Union was fully aware of the loss sustained. Jack Hearon, an adjuster for Commercial Union, informed the Wrights that they need not worry about whether the claim would be paid. Randall Peters, who was sent to investigate the claim for Commercial Union, made similar statements to the Wrights. In light of the plaintiff's material compliance with the policy provisions and the conduct of Commercial Union's agents, a factual question was created as to waiver. Cf. Modestino v. Allstate Ins. Co., 125 Ga.App. 665, 188 S.E.2d 830 (1972) (issue of fact as to whether insurance company had waived requirement of proof of loss where adjuster stated he would handle the matter for the plaintiff). Laughinghouse v. First of Georgia Ins. Co., 123 Ga.App. 189, 179 S.E.2d 675 (1971) ([E]vidence as to a statement of [insurance company] official made to the plaintiff inquired as to when payment of the claim would be made, that everything was in line, and was being processed, and only a little time was necessary, was, if believed by the jury, sufficient to constitute a waiver of the filing of proof of loss....).