From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simmons v. American Security Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 18, 1963
130 S.E.2d 351 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)

Opinion

39980.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 18, 1963.

Complaint. Fulton Civil Court. Before Judge Smith.

Lucian J. Endicott, for plaintiff in error.

Powell, Goldstein, Frazer Murphy, Robert R. Harlin, James K. Rankin, contra.


Where by the terms of a contract of motor vehicle insurance the loss is payable to the named insured and a named mortgagee loan company "as interest may appear," the insured may not, over timely special demurrer, sue in his own name to recover the loss to the exclusion of the mortgagee. He may in the first instance join the mortgagee as party, Georgia Cas. c. Co. v. Pincus, 89 Ga. App. 836 ( 81 S.E.2d 527), or he may maintain the action for his own use and the use of the mortgagee. Johnson v. General Exchange Ins. Corp., 49 Ga. App. 780 ( 176 S.E. 840). But an amendment merely calling upon the mortgagee, who is not a party, to intervene in the pending suit is not a compliance with either method.

A timely special demurrer having been filed raising the issue of nonjoinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiff having failed to amend to cure the defect, it was not error thereafter to dismiss the petition.

Judgment affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 18, 1963.


Summaries of

Simmons v. American Security Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 18, 1963
130 S.E.2d 351 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
Case details for

Simmons v. American Security Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:SIMMONS v. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Feb 18, 1963

Citations

130 S.E.2d 351 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
130 S.E.2d 351

Citing Cases

Rice v. State Farm c. Ins. Co.

(ITT's interest at time of theft was $25,184.11.) Although not directly in point, the case of Simmonsv.…

Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. c. Co.

20A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 11749 (1963). How does this proposition square with what was said…