Court Opinion

ID: 9586487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:12:01.12616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:47.692033
License: Public Domain

Russell, Judge.
1. A former decision of an appellate court in the same case becomes the law of the case and cannot thereafter, upon a subsequent appeal, be modified or overruled. Dixon v. Federal Farm Mtg. Corp., 187 Ga. 660 (1 SE2d 732); Turner v. Davidson, 188 Ga. 736 (4 SE2d 814, 125 ALR 401); Smoot v. Alexander, 192 Ga. 684 (16 SE2d 544). All questions of law determined on a prior appeal in an action on an insurance policy are binding both upon this court and on the trial court in further proceedings. Mutual Ben. Health &c. Assn. v. Marsh, 62 Ga. App. 425 (8 SE2d 117). All issues material to a decision in the case which were or could have been raised on the prior appeal are a part of the law of the case. Lowe v. City of Atlanta, 194 Ga. 317 (21 SE2d 171).
The first appeal involved one major issue, which was whether under the facts stated in the petition the policy attached thereto included double indemnity coverage, and one corollary issue, which was whether the denial of liability as to double indemnity by the insurance company under this state of facts might be found by a jury to have been in bad faith. We answered yes to both questions. The particular policy provision involved had never before been construed by the courts of this state, and the sole question before us was one of law. In Division 3 of the opinion we held that there was double indemnity coverage. Paragraph 14 of the petition, alleging that the defendant’s refusal to pay more than $1,034 (the face value of the policy) constituted bad faith and rendered the defendant liable for penalty and attorney’s fees, was attacked by demurrer on the ground that “neither in said paragraph, nor elsewhere in the petition, *623is it shown wherein defendant is indebted in any greater amount.” The court held: “In view of Division 3 of this opinion, where-under the defendant might be liable to the petitioner in an amount greater than $1,034 [that is, double indemnity] the question of penalty and attorney’s fees is a jury question. Therefore, the court erred in sustaining this special demurrer.” P. 871.
A demurrer, although addressed only to a particular paragraph of the pleadings, is not necessarily a special demurrer but may be general as to some particular issue in a case. Douglas, Augusta &c. R. Co. v. Swindle, 2 Ga. App. 550 (59 SE 600); Ayers v. Young, 210 Ga. 441 (1) (80 SE2d 801). This demurrer, addressed to paragraph 14 and to the petition as a whole, raised but one issue: if the plaintiff proved all the allegations of his petition as alleged, would the facts shown support also a finding of bad faith on the part of the defendant in refusing to pay more than $1,034, that is, in refusing to pay the double indemnity feature of the policy? If as a matter of law the construction of the policy provision urged by the defendant was not frivolous or unfounded, this court would necessarily have had to hold on demurrer, as it did in Southeastern Construction Co. v. Glens Falls Indem. Co., 81 Ga. App. 770, 772 (2) (59 SE2d 751) that “it cannot be said that to test the question here is in bad faith.” The issue was material to the decision at that time and was or could have been raised on the prior appeal; it accordingly became the law of the case that if the plaintiff proved the allegations of his petition the jury might, as they in fact did, find bad faith on the part of the insurer. Since the question for decision in the first instance was a matter of law only, the litigants, the trial court, this court, and the Supreme Court on certiorari knew as well then as they know now to what extent a new and novel question of lawr was involved. Nothing in the evidence before the jury discloses any fact which changes that picture. The insurance company did not attempt by its evidence to negative the imputation of bad faith, Life & Cas. Co. of Tenn. v. Smith, 51 Ga. App. 122 (2) (179 SE 744), which followed the refusal to pay on any other ground than that, under its construction of the policy, double indemnity was not provided, and that the question of law of how to construe the policy was a *624new and novel one. These are the very questions we decided, right or wrong, on the first appearance of this case, and we cannot readjudicate them now. It follows that the verdict was authorized, and that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., Carlisle, P. J., Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur. Bell, Frankum, Hall and Eberhardt, JJ., dissent.