FRANK PARIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an insured's failure to comply with the policy's notice provisions precludes any action against the insurer.
An employee of Paris was involved in an accident with Mrs. Horton, who was paid $10,000 in settlement. Paris sued its insurer, State Farm, to compel p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Policy Conditions Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
One of Paris’ employees was involved in an accident with a Mrs. Horton while the employee was delivering milk from Paris’ dairy to a store. Mrs. Horton was paid $10,000 in settlement of her injury claim.
Paris sued State Farm to compel payment under an insurance policy issued by State Farm to Paris, which covered such an accident. The District Court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Paris had not complied with certain conditions precedent to liability on the policy. Paris appealed. The policy in question explicitly provides that an insured may not sue the company unless all terms of the policy have been fully met. Among the terms of the policy are provisions that written notice of any accident must be given “as soon as practicable,” and that the “insured shall immediately forward to the Company every demand, notice, summons or other process received by him or his representatives.” Written notice of the accident was first given over nine months after the accident occurred. Papers pertinent to the suit brought by Mrs. Horton against Paris were not forwarded to State Farm until almost two months after the suit was brought and after defensive pleadings had been filed. In these circumstances the District Court was clearly correct in holding that Paris had not complied with the notice provisions of the policy, and that, therefore, no action could lie against the company.1
Affirmed.
. Paris’ contention that State Farm is estopped from asserting failure to comply with the notice provisions is unavailing since Paris has failed to show an “intended deception” or “gross negligence” by State Farm. Title 38 Ga. Code Ann. § 116; see Barkley v. American National Insurance Co., 1927, 36 Ga.App. 447, 136 S.E. 803.