From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Enfinger v. International Indemnity Company

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 8, 1987
257 Ga. 385 (Ga. 1987)

Opinion

44205, 44249.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1987.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 181 Ga. App. 420.

Kirbo Conger, Ben Kirbo, for appellant.

Gurley Fowler, Michael L. Wetzel, for appellee.


We granted certiorari to consider Division 2 of the Court of Appeals opinion on the recovery of prejudgment interest in an action to recover optional insurance benefits for personal injury protection (PIP). The Court of Appeals held that the claim in this case is liquidated and that interest runs from the time demand for payment of benefits is made by the insured until payment is tendered by the insurer, less the thirty-day period provided in OCGA § 33-34-6. Intl. Indemnity Co. v. Enfinger, 181 Ga. App. 420 ( 352 S.E.2d 575) (1986). We affirm.

The Court of Appeals relied on their earlier case of Intl. Indemnity Co. v. Terrell, 178 Ga. App. 570 ( 344 S.E.2d 239) (1986). We agree that when the only issue contested by the insurer is the existence of coverage and not the amount of the claim then the claim is properly considered liquidated. The holding of Terrell, supra, and in this case in Enfinger, supra, would not apply when the parties are in dispute over the amount of the claim for which payment is demanded.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1987.


Summaries of

Enfinger v. International Indemnity Company

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 8, 1987
257 Ga. 385 (Ga. 1987)
Case details for

Enfinger v. International Indemnity Company

Case Details

Full title:ENFINGER v. INTERNATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; and vice versa

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Sep 8, 1987

Citations

257 Ga. 385 (Ga. 1987)
359 S.E.2d 884

Citing Cases

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London

A claim is liquidated even if actual liability is disputed so long as the amount of loss or damages suffered…

Rice v. State Farm c. Ins. Co.

In this instance the amount of the claim was vigorously contested throughout trial, and the amount of claim…