Court Opinion

ID: 9566703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:42:10.6465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:07.511402
License: Public Domain

Jordan, Judge,
concurring specially. 1. The dissenting opinion in effect says that a person who “thinks” or is “advised” that he has title to personal property may summarily recover it where found, under any conditions and circumstances, he being protected because he is acting under a “claim of right.” I think this conclusion is error under the facts of this case.
In this case the car was located in the possession of an innocent purchaser for value, the car having been sold to him through regular channels of trade. Such was known to the agent of McCullagh, who must know under such circumstances that the plaintiff would also have a claim to title. Indeed it must be assumed that he knew that the sale of the car to the plaintiff under the facts of this case divested his principal of title thereto. Cook Motor Co. v. Richardson, 103 Ga. App. 129 (118 SE2d 502) and authorities therein cited. With such knowledge, and abandoning the legal remedy available to test the title, McCullagh’s agent chose instead to steal upon the plaintiff’s premises under the cloak of darkness in the early morning hours and drive the car away. All the elements of theft were thus present, including the intent to deprive plaintiff of possession of his property. By taking the car in this manner, the agent waived any bona fide claim of right his principal might have had and in effect “took the law in his own hands.”
The dissent states that the result reached therein “does not leave the plaintiff without remedy,” and that if he in fact has title to the car he can institute that proper action to recover it or its value. If such be true, can he abandon his legal remedy, proceed to Michigan and take the car under the circumstances whereby it was taken from him? I think not, though the dissent approved such action on the part of McCullagh’s agent because he was acting under a “claim of right.”
It is not a requirement under the policy that the plaintiff show a conviction for larceny before he can recover under the theft coverage. He was insuring himself against someone illegally and unlawfully taking his property from him, as was done in this case, and his right to recover would not be defeated even if the person so taking were acquitted of a charge of larceny.
*52. I agree with Division 2 of the dissent dealing with penalty and attorney’s fees. The facts here are certainly such that reasonable minds might differ as to whether there was coverage, and under such conditions the insurance company must be free to make a defense.
I would affirm on condition that the penalty and attorney’s fees be written off, otherwise reverse.