Court Opinion

ID: 9589037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:41:11.816567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:22.879718
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for rehearing in which he raises the issue of his entitlement to the remainder of funds not expended in the policy’s minimum PIP coverage. In essence, plaintiff asks for a partial summary judgment in the amount of $3,401, the remainder of minimum PIP coverage not paid to the deceased’s parents.
The complaint alleged that “[defendant [insurer] has failed and refused to pay the optional benefits that are lawfully due plaintiff . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) The complaint prayed for $50,000 “personal injury protection benefits rightfully belonging to plaintiff . . . .” The plaintiff moved “for a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. ...” A movant has the option, under OCGA § 9-11-56 of moving for a whole summary judgment or for “an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy. . . .” OCGA § 9-11-56 (d). In other words, movant can elect to move for a whole or a partial summary judgment. This same issue was raised in Borden, Inc. v. Barker, 124 Ga. App. 291, 295 (183 SE2d 597), on a motion for rehearing, and we *821found that “[t]he motion for summary judgment in this case set out that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact [as in this case] and thus sought a grant [of summary judgment] as to the whole case. The enumeration of error [as in this case] likewise was with regard to a summary judgment in toto and made no mention of any partial recovery.” Thereafter, we reaffirmed a prior holding, Smith v. Allen, 115 Ga. App. 80, 81 (153 SE2d 648), in which it was held, “[a]s plaintiff has failed to enumerate any error on the trial court’s omission to make an order, pursuant to [OCGA § 9-11-56 (d)] specifying whether certain facts appear without substantial controversy, we can determine only whether the court erred in denying the motion as to the whole case.” Accord Pritchard v. Rainey, 131 Ga. App. 521 (206 SE2d 726); Ireland v. Matthews, 120 Ga. App. 510, 512 (171 SE2d 387).
This court also addressed a similar issue in Georgia Ports Auth. v. Norair Engineering Corp., 131 Ga. App. 618, 619 (206 SE2d 563), in which the defendant filed for summary judgment, which was denied. On appeal, defendant claimed he was “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The Ports Authority asked this court “to reverse the trial court by granting only partial summary judgment” as to a portion of the claim asserted below. We held “we can determine only whether the order as actually signed and entered, denying the motion as filed, is error as enumerated; and since the Authority has not undertaken to demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the whole ... of the complaint . . . and makes no contention to that effect, the judgment denying the motion must be affirmed.”
Hence, the complaint in the instant case sought recovery of $50,000. The motion for summary judgment sought recovery of the whole amount and plaintiff did not request partial summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 (d). The trial court ruled on the summary judgment motion, as filed, and correctly found that plaintiff was not entitled to the entire $50,000 because a third-party beneficiary could not make application for “optional” benefits in lieu of the policyholder. The error enumerated on appeal was directed toward denial of its motion as presented. The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for $50,000.
Turning to the issue of plaintiffs entitlement to partial summary judgment for the remainder of the funds in basic PIP coverage, we find that this issue is not raised by the enumerated error. Pritchett, supra; Borden, supra; Ireland, supra; Smith, supra. Further, this issue was neither raised nor ruled upon in the trial court. Plaintiff has now sought to raise this issue for the first time on appeal. “He must stand or fall upon the position taken in the trial court. [Cits.] He cannot thus mend his hold [on appeal]. [Cits.]” H. W. Ivey Constr. Co. v. *822Transamerica Ins. Co., 119 Ga. App. 794 (2) (168 SE2d 855); accord Gerald v. Ameron Automotive Centers, 145 Ga. App. 200, 202 (243 SE2d 565).
Decided July 3, 1986
Rehearing denied July 21, 1986.
Lonzy F. Edwards, for appellant.
Gary L. Seacrest, Stephen M. Worrall, for appellee.

Judgment adhered to. Motion for rehearing denied.