Court Opinion

ID: 9626898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:27:12.540383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:46.216926
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Defendant alleges this court overlooked the decisions of Corbin v. Gulf Ins. Co., 125 Ga. App. 281 (187 SE2d 312), and Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v. Gates, 134 Ga. App. 795 (216 SE2d 619) in reaching our decision. In Corbin, Gulf Insurance contended that the insured failed to comply with policy requirements which were conditions precedent to coverage. Those conditions related to a written statement under oath to the company within 30 days, and the report to be filed with the Georgia Director of Public Safety. The plaintiff contested the sufficiency of the affidavit of the supervisor of the Department of Public Safety to prove a report was not filed by his daughter who he states was driving the car at the time of the incident. This court held: "But pretermitting whether there is a genuine issue of fact over whether there was compliance with the policy requirement of reporting the accident to the Department of Public Safety, no genuine issue exists in the evidence over whether Corbin or anyone in his behalf filed a written statement under oath with the company within 30 days of the accident. . .” Id. p. 284. Thus, the court expressly declined to consider the issue which was the basis of the present decision and is not applicable.
In Gates the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) contended that the insured failed to comply with the same two provisions, notice to the company and the Department of Public Safety.
This court held: "That such notice provisions are binding and are conditions precedent to an action against the insurer when so provided in the insurance policy, as here, is settled. Corbin v. Gulf Ins. Co., 125 Ga. App. 281 (2) (187 SE2d 312).” 134 Ga. App. p. 796. Both parties moved for summary judgment and both motions were *454denied. However, Gates moved for and was granted a directed verdict. Gates submitted affidavits claiming waiver of the requirement by the insurance adjuster. This court concluded that these statements "are certainly additional factors which rendered the denial of motions for summary judgment proper and which the jury should have been allowed to consider in determining the question of waiver. . . The question should have been submitted to the jury at the conclusion of all the evidence.” Thus, the issue in Gates was not decided on summary judgment but on a directed verdict and held the issue should have been submitted to a jury. Neither of these decisions reached the issue of abatement or compliance with the condition precedent as we did in the instant case. We find no merit to this portion of the motion.
2. Defendant avers that we misapplied the concept of abatement to the facts of this case. He argues that "[t]he doctrine has application to the pendency of prior suits and the continuation of suits after the death of a litigant,” and refers us to Georgia Code Ann. §§ 3-501 et seq. and 3-601 et seq. We do not read this doctrine so restrictively.
Abatement of an action at common law "is the entire overthrow or destruction of the action, resulting from the fact that the defendant pleads some matter that defeats the action, either for the time being or permanently. . . Any further enforcement of the cause of action necessitates the bringing of a new action...” 1 AmJur2d 41, Abatement, Survival, and Revival, § 1. Accord, 1 CJS 27, Abatement and Revival, § 1; Black’s Law Dictionary. This court has held that if a cause of action is brought on an insurance policy without performance of a condition precedent to the right to sue, this subjects the action to a plea in abatement. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Lam, 34 Ga. App. 246 (2) (129 SE 116); see also 1 CJS 126, Abatement and Revival, § 86, and cits.

Motion for rehearing denied.