Court Opinion

ID: 9855794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:31:17.122173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:04.461279
License: Public Domain

Deen, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent. The majority contends that there was no direct evidence of an actual or implied agreement between Courson and Northeastern to procure fire insurance on her behalf in 1978. The evidence, however, shows that Northeastern had handled her insurance needs for several years prior to the fire and the majority opinion holds that it was an independent insurance agency which was acting as appellee’s insurance agent. On July 28, 1975, the agency obtained both a homeowner’s policy on her personal residence and a fire insurance policy on her rental property with Pennsylvania National. Both policies were scheduled to expire on July 28, 1978. Northeastern notified her before the homeowner’s policy expired and she renewed the policy, but apparently forgot to notify her that the fire insurance policy was about to expire. While the majority opinion claims that the fire insurance policy was nonrenewable, I do not believe that this point is material because Northeastern had a duty to notify her that the policy was about to expire in order to provide her the opportunity to obtain coverage with another insurer.
Courson’s affidavit in support of her motion for summary judgment states that the policies covering both her residence and her rental property were obtained through McKinney, that she had established credit with the agency, and that she relied upon them to *325maintain fire insurance on her rental property. She denied receiving notice of Pennsylvania National’s intent not to renew the fire insurance policy and that she was assured by McKinney that the failure to renew the insurance was caused by an oversight in his office. McKinney did not file a counter-affidavit.
Under Code Ann. § 81 A-156 (e) “When a motion for summary judgment is made ... , an adverse party may not rest . . . [on] his pleading, but his response . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.” (Emphasis supplied.) It is the duty of each party at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment to present his case in full.
As Northeastern was appellee’s insurance agent and did not file a counter-affidavit denying Courson’s claim that she was assured by McKinney that the failure to renew the insurance was caused by an oversight in his office, I believe that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the appellees.