From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Torrance v. Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Georgia
Feb 4, 1965
140 S.E.2d 840 (Ga. 1965)

Opinion

22637.

ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1965.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1965. REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 18, 1965.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 110 Ga. App. 4 ( 137 S.E.2d 551).

Adams, O'Neal, Steele, Thornton Hemingway, H. T. O'Neal, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Martin, Snow, Grant Napier, Cubbedge Snow, Jr., contra.


The petition alleges that suit had, without the written permission of the insurer, been prosecuted by the insured against the tortfeasor to judgment. The policy provides that it does not cover a claim where the insured settles with the tortfeasor or sued to judgment a claim against such tortfeasor without the written consent of the insurer. The trial court overruled the general demurrer of the insurer. The Court of Appeals in Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co. v. Torrance, 110 Ga. App. 4 ( 137 S.E.2d 551), reversed, and this court granted the application of the insured for the writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Held:

After hearing the arguments of counsel and after further study of the case, we reach the conclusion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is sound. The opinion of that court is clear and comprehensive, and further discussion by this court is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Quillian, J., who dissents.

ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1965 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1965 — REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 18, 1965.


Summaries of

Torrance v. Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Georgia
Feb 4, 1965
140 S.E.2d 840 (Ga. 1965)
Case details for

Torrance v. Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:TORRANCE v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Feb 4, 1965

Citations

140 S.E.2d 840 (Ga. 1965)
140 S.E.2d 840

Citing Cases

Kisling v. MFA Mutual Insurance Co.

So, in jurisdictions where contracts to arbitrate future controversies are valid, the judgment prohibition…

U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Hillman

This Court, in disposing of the precise (but different) question involved in Harthcock, made a reference to…