Court Opinion

ID: 9624631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:12:17.505621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:51.793665
License: Public Domain

Deen, Judge,
dissenting. 1. Even if the negotiations for settlement and direct promises to pay of agents of the insurer had extended beyond the two-year period of the statute of limitation there is doubt as to the applicability of the cases cited in Division 2 of the majority opinion, especially in view of several provisions contained in the policy binding on both parties, such as: "14. Changes. Notice to any agent or knowledge possessed by any agent or by any other person shall not effect a waiver or a change in any part of this policy or estop the company from asserting any right under the terms of this policy; nor shall the terms of this policy be waived or changed, except by endorsement issued to form a part of this policy.”
"9. Action Against Company. No action shall lie against the company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, the insured or his legal representative has fully complied with all the terms of this endorsement.”
"18. Declarations. By acceptance of this policy, the insured named in Item 1 of the declarations agrees that the statements in the declarations are his agreements and representations, that this policy is issued in reliance upon the truth of such representations and that this policy embodies all agreements existing between himself and the company or any of its agents relating to this insurance.” (Emphasis supplied).
Insured had notice of the contractual requirements of waiver contained in the policy as well as knowledge as to limitations of authority of agents of insurer.
2. Plaintiff appellee filed suit against his insurer on August 13, 1970, two or three days within the statute of limitation. It appears clear that upon the filing of the suit plaintiff is no longer *814relying upon promises of the insurer but is suing because insurer is refusing to pay. Insured has sued insurer prematurely as he should have first sued and obtained a judgment against the tortfeasor as a condition precedent under the uninsured motorist coverage provisions. King v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 117 Ga. App. 192 (160 SE2d 230).
3. It is unnecessary to decide whether the allegations of paragraph 4 (a) of the complaint would be subject to demurrer as not sufficiently stating actionable fraud as a ground for tolling the statute of limitation under Code § 3-807, which were the questions involved in Clinton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 110 Ga. App. 417 (138 SE2d 687). If decided in appellee’s favor, the statute of limitation under Code § 3-807 would be tolled up until August 13, 1970, allowing the running of the statute from that date.
I would reverse.
I am authorized to state that Judge Eberhardt concurs in this dissent.