From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Lott

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 24, 1980
271 S.E.2d 833 (Ga. 1980)

Opinion

36444.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 8, 1980.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 24, 1980.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 154 Ga. App. 474.

Corish Smith, Malberry Smith, for appellant.

Jack J. Helms, for appellee.


We granted cert to review an opinion of the Court of Appeals holding that an insurance company could be sued under the venue provisions of Code Ann. § 56-1201 (2) of the Insurance Code by one not a party to the insurance contract. Lott v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 154 Ga. App. 474 ( 268 S.E.2d 686) (1980). We affirm.

"Except for actions arising ... in Chapter 56-6, whenever any person shall have a claim or demand on any insurer, such person may institute suit in any of the following places: ... (2) In any county where the company shall have an agent or place of doing business; ..." (Emphasis supplied.)

Lott, the administrator of the estate of Ruel T. Lott sued Liberty Mutual on an alleged agreement to settle a claim on behalf of its insured arising from an automobile collision in Florida. Suit was filed in Chatham County, where Liberty Mutual maintains an office and an agent.

Liberty Mutual claims that since this action does not involve a claim between the insurance company and its insured, the venue provisions of the Insurance Code, Code Ann. § 56-1201, are inapplicable and the general venue provisions of the Corporations Code, Code Ann. § 22-404 (b), must prevail. Venue would then lie in Fulton County. In so arguing, Liberty Mutual relies on Mavity v. First of Georgia Ins. Co., 115 Ga. App. 763 ( 156 S.E.2d 191) (1967), holding that the insurance venue provisions did not apply in a tort suit for libel against an employee of the insurance company. We find this case distinguishable. That case did not arise out of the insurance company's business as an insurer, but its role as an employer. Therefore, the insurance venue provisions were not applicable.

Under Code Ann. § 22-404 (b): "For the purpose of determining venue each domestic corporation and each foreign corporation authorized to transact business in this State shall be deemed to reside in the county where its registered office is maintained." Liberty Mutual is a Massachusetts corporation registered in Fulton County.

The present suit, however, arises out of Liberty Mutual's role as an insurer. Compare Jones v. Southern Home Ins. Co., 135 Ga. App. 385 ( 217 S.E.2d 620) (1975). Therefore, we hold that the venue provisions of the Insurance Code are applicable and affirm the Court of Appeals. See generally, Dependable Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 218 Ga. 305 ( 127 S.E.2d 454) (1962).

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 8, 1980 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 24, 1980.


Summaries of

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Lott

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 24, 1980
271 S.E.2d 833 (Ga. 1980)
Case details for

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Lott

Case Details

Full title:LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. LOTT

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Sep 24, 1980

Citations

271 S.E.2d 833 (Ga. 1980)
271 S.E.2d 833

Citing Cases

Travelers, Inc. v. Patterman

See OCGA § 1-3-1 (b). It is not limited to claims on contracts of insurance. It must, however, be a claim…

Patterman v. Travelers, Inc.

To the extent that there is any limitation to the application of the statute, such limitation is not based on…