Court Opinion

ID: 9589132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:41:36.907437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:17.416832
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
As to Division 1 of the Majority Opinion
The jury returned its verdict in this case as follows:
“We the jury find on behalf of the plaintiff Lewis H. Allen in the amount of: $80,000.00
$45,000.00 PIP
$11,250.00 25 % Penalty
$ 4,400.00 Atty. Fees
$60,650.00
$19,350.00 Tort Damage 1/2 against each Defendant
$80,000.00”
The trial judge, pursuant to the verdict, rendered an $80,000 judgment. The majority opinion in Division 1 states in part: “[W]e believe the verdict would be correct as a matter of law and was misinterpreted so that the judgment is not reflective of it.” This is said with*15out providing any mathematical methodology so as to enable one to evaluate the arithmetical accuracy of the conclusion.
At least, at first blush, three questions need attention, as they create cause for concern:
(a) Could the Lairsey agency be held liable for punitive damages under OCGA § 33-34-6 (c), as the penalty provided for in that section applies only to “insurers?” The agency does not seem to fit the category as an insurer.
(b) As the insurance company was held jointly liable with the agency, the only theory of recovery would be in tort. The plaintiff, however, neither pleaded nor proved any damages except the $45,000 in PIP benefits for breach of contract. How stands this feature of the verdict and judgment?
(c) Damages were sought as punitive damages under OCGA § 51-12-5. For an award of punitive damages under this code section must there also be an award of compensatory damages? Since the latter does not exist, how stands the former?
Since the majority opinion does not elaborate on the verdict other than to say, “The verdict of the jury should be upheld if it can be done in accordance with the law,” this dissent likewise will not deal further with it. Had the majority outlined its thoughts and provided enlightenment on this matter more in detail, the questions shown in (a), (b), and (c) could well be explained and disappear.
As to Division 2 of the Majority Opinion
The majority opinion requires a new trial in this case solely based on Enumeration of Error 14. The latter enumeration reads as follows: “The court erred in refusing to allow cross-examination on the issue of whether the optional coverages were explained to Plaintiff.” (Emphasis supplied.) The particular point argued in the brief relating to this enumeration of error is “that Lairsey’s counsel could not cross-examine Allen.” Actually when Allen was on cross-examination, counsel was not prohibited from testing the plaintiff’s recollection as to whether he had or had not signed the no-fault application. Apparently counsel elected not to do so. The cross-examination appeared to be full and within the discretion of the court.
There is no enumeration of error regarding limiting Lairsey’s counsel upon the direct-examination of Lairsey as to surrounding circumstances. The trial judge limited the direct-examination of Lairsey under Colwell v. Voyager Cas. Ins. Co., 251 Ga. 744, 748 (309 SE2d 617) (1983). The enumeration of error, however, goes directly only to the prohibition of the cross-examination of Allen. The majority opinion seemingly has rewritten this alleged error to read 180 degrees differently by reversing the case specifically on the limitation of the di*16rect-examination of Lairsey by his own counsel, to which no error was enumerated. This court cannot enlarge upon an error enumerated. We should not reverse a case on an alleged error which has not been enumerated and assigned as error by the parties. We must take the case as we find it and act accordingly.
Decided July 8, 1986
Rehearing denied July 29, 1986
Benjamin Smith, Jr., for appellant (case no. 71848).
George N. Skene, for appellant (case no. 71849).
C. Been Strickland, Michael B. BeVane, for appellees.
I generally agree with what is said in the last paragraph of the majority opinion relating to the failure to assert a fraud claim.
While sharply disagreeing with the majority that the case should be reversed on Enumeration of Error 14, it is my belief that this court should give serious attention as to whether the verdict of the jury in its present state can be upheld in accordance with the law. Since the majority is reversing this case, the validity of any verdict and judgment must await another day. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge Benham joins in this opinion and that Judge Carley joins in this opinion only as to the remarks relating to Division 2 of the majority opinion.