Hawkins v. Turner
166 Ga. App. 50
Ga. Ct. App.
1983
Check Treatment

HAWKINS v. TURNER et al.

65060

Court of Appeals of Georgia

DECIDED MARCH 15, 1983

REHEARING DENIED MARCH 29, 1983

CARLEY, Judge.

“imposes on the claimant the burden of establishing PIP coverage in excess of the basic $5,000. Code Ann. § 56-3403b.” ; . Appellant, as noted supra, has not discharged this burden.

3. The court notes that, whereas subsection (c) as originally enacted directs that its рrovisions be followed “on and after [March 1, 1975],” the insurer hastened to comply early by mailing its “Dear Georgia Motorist” notice in February 1975. We hold that such notification, if mailed in advance of, but within reasonable temporal proximity tо, the effective date, is in substantial compliance with the statute‘s intent and letter.

Judgment affirmed. Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

DECIDED MARCH 15, 1983 —
REHEARING DENIED MARCH 29, 1983 —

B. Samuel Engram, Jr., for appellant.
Bryan F. Dorsey, for appellee.

65060. HAWKINS v. TURNER et al.

CARLEY, Judge.

Appellant-Hawkins was the subcontractor hired by the general contractor, Clark & Clark (Clark), to install a sprinkler system in a new store owned by appеllee-Turner. Turner and two adjoining store owners brought the instant action against Clark and appellant for damages caused by a water flood, the source of which was the sprinkler system installed by appellant. A more detailed factual background may be found in , in which this court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Clark. Just before the case came to trial, Clark was voluntarily dismissed, leaving appellant as the sole defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Turner and the other store owners and Hawkins appeals.

1. Appellant contends that any liability for negligence in installing the sprinkler system is the responsibility of Hawkins Heating and Plumbing Company, Inc., a corporation, and not of himself individually. Apрellant‘s motion for summary judgment predicated on this contention was denied on the grounds that material issues of fact remained. Subsequently, partial summary judgment in favor of appellees was granted as to this issue. The trial court‘s order provided that the contracting entity with the contractor, Clark, was appellant individually and not the corporation, Hawkins Heating and Plumbing Company, Inc. The trial court also granted appellees’ motion in limine prohibiting appеllant from introducing evidence at trial concerning the purported liability of the corporation.

The undisputed evidence on motion for summary judgment showed the following: Appellant signed the contract with Clark for installation of thе sprinkler system as follows: “Hawkins Plumbing Company, Inc., B. L. Hawkins.” However, there is no corporation having the name “Hawkins Plumbing ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍Company, Inc.” Appellant formed a corporation in 1967 named “Hawkins Heating and Plumbing Company, Inc.” of which he was the majоr stockholder and president. “Hawkins Plumbing Company, Inc.” was never registered as the trade name of “Hawkins Heating and Plumbing Company, Inc.”

Appellees contend that since “Hawkins Plumbing Company, Inc.” was neither a corporation nor the registered trade name of Hawkins Heating and Plumbing Company, Inc., appellant bound himself individually on the contract with Clark. Appellant contends that he never represented to Clark that he was executing the contract in an individual capacity and insists that he executed the contract as the president of a corporation.

That appellant did not indicate his representative capacity in his signature is not conclusive on the question of his individual liability. See ; ; 19 CJS 707-708, Corporations, § 1138a. Compare (corporate charter required particular form of execution). Parol evidence is admissible to show that an individual who failed to indicate his representative capacity nevertheless signed a contrаct as an officer of a corporation and that it was the intent of the parties to bind the corporation. ; . See generally .

“An undertaking by an individual in a fictitious or trade name is the obligation of the individual.” . See also . Similarly, “if a contract is entered into by an аgent in the name of a nonexistent principal, the inference is that the agent is bound on it.” . However, a mere “misnomer of a corporation in a written instrument, or in a law, or in a judicial proceeding is not material or vital in its cоnsequences, if the identity of the corporation intended is clear or can be ascertained by proof.” 6 Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations 182-183, § 2444 (Perm. Ed.). (Emphasis supplied.) See also 18 CJS 573, Corpоrations, § 172. Cf. ; ; ; ; .

“A corporate name usually consists of several words, and an omission... of one or more is not so likely to confuse and mislead, or to hide the identity of the entity intended, as would be the case as to natural persons. Thе important thing is to determine what corporation the parties intended, for it is the intent of the parties that controls. Error in the use of the corporate name will not be permitted to frustrate the intent which the name was meant tо convey, and to find out the identity of the corporation intended, resort may be had to evidence aliunde.” 6 Fletcher 182, § 2444, supra. See generally ; , aff‘d ; . Cf. . We hold, therefore, that an agent who executes a contract using a misnomer of a corporation is not as a matter of law ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍conducting business either in a fictitious or trade name or in the name of a nonexistent principal. See generally .

Whether the contract was executed under any cirсumstances tending to import Clark‘s knowledge of appellant‘s agency for a corporation or of the identity of the corporation are questions of fact. See generally ; . Further, appellant‘s use of the designаtion “Inc.” in signing “Hawkins Plumbing Company, Inc.,” raises the inference that Clark knew that the contract execution was that of a corporate entity. See . See generally ; . On motion for summary judgment, all inferences must be construed favorably to appellаnt as the non-movant. .

It was the burden of appellees as movants to establish the absence of any issue of material fact. . Appellees failed to carry that burden. It could not be determined as a matter of law that aрpellant was individually liable on the contract, as this was a question for the jury‘s determination. See ; ; ; ; ; . Cf. . The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees on the issue of individual versus corporate liability. The trial court alsо erred in granting appellees’ motion in limine and excluding evidence relevant to the issue of corporate liability.

2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding a purported mutual agreement between Turner and Clark regarding the obtaining of insurance by Turner. Relying upon , appellant argues that Turner cannot recover from him because his work as a subcontractor was covered by insurance procured by Turner pursuant to an agreement with Clark. See . Whether such an agreement between Turner and Clark existed was determined ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍to be a question of fact in our earlier ruling on this case. .

The holding in Tuxedo was based upon the rule “that where parties to a business transаction mutually agree that insurance will be provided as a part of the bargain, such agreement must be construed as providing mutual exculpation to the bargaining parties who must be deemed to have agreed to look solely to the insurance in the event of loss and not to liability on the part of the opposing party.” . (Emphasis supplied.) Pretermitting whether Clark and Turner entered into the purported agreement, appellant has tendered no evidence that he was a party to such an agreement. The evidence showed that a contractual relationship existed between Turner and Clark, as owner and contractor, and between Clark and appellant as сontractor and subcontractor, but not between Turner and appellant. Without privity of contract between himself and Turner, as a matter of law appellant may not avail himself of the rule of mutual exculpation stated in Tuxedo. See ; ; ; . See generally . The trial court did not err in excluding evidence of an agreement regarding insurance coverage.

3. Appellant contends that the court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict (made at trial in the form of a motion to dismiss) based upon the acceptance by the general contractor of appellant‘s completed work prior to the occurrence of the flood.

“[I]t is a well established general rule that, where thе work of an independent contractor is completed, turned over to, and accepted by the owner, the contractor is not liable to third persons for damages or injuries subsequently suffered by reason of the condition оf the work, even though he was negligent in carrying out the contract, at least, if the defect is not hidden but readily observable on reasonable inspection. [Cits.]” . See 65 CJS 1060-1061, Negligence, § 95. This rule applies as well to the work of a subcontractor, such as appellant, which is turned over to the general contractor upon completion. See generally ; ; 65 CJS 1068, Negligence, § 96. While the evidence supports appellant‘s contention that the general contractor, Clark, had accepted the completed sprinkler system some thirty days before the flooding, the evidence also establishes that the defect in the system was hidden and not readily observable on reasonablе inspection by the contractor. Therefore, the “general rule” of nonliability upon acceptance will not apply to shield appellant. See . See also ; . The trial court did not err in denying appellant‘s motion based ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍upоn the general contractor‘s acceptance of appellant‘s work.

4. Appellant also enumerates as error the trial court‘s failure to instruct the jury on contributory negligence, a defense raised by apрellant in his answer. A pretrial order had provided that such an instruction would be given. However, at trial, the court modified the order and ruled that there was no evidence on which to support a charge on contributory negligence. See generally ; .

The evidence at trial showed that Turner moved merchandise into the store within a few days of the scheduled opening without first obtaining an occupancy permit and without “check[ing] with anyone to see if it was okаy...” The sprinkler system had been installed, tested, and approved by the fire marshall and accepted by the contractor approximately thirty days earlier. The trial court did not err in refusing to charge on contributory negligencе since there was no evidence to authorize a finding that any negligence on Turner‘s part proximately contributed to his damages. See ; ; .

5. Appellant next enumerates as error the trial court‘s refusal to give his requested chаrge on “acts of God.” Appellant‘s request was predicated on the theory that the separation of pipes and coupling in the sprinkler system resulted from water shock or surge occurring when lightning struck the main pumps in the city water system.

“There is no error in failing to charge a principle which is not applicable to the evidence adduced on the trial of the case. [Cit.]” . Upon review of the transcript we find insufficient evidence to authorize a charge on “acts of God.” The trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested charge. See ; . See generally ; .

6. Remaining enumerations of error are either moot or are not likely to recur at the retrial.

Judgment reversed. Shulman, C. J., and Quillian, P. J., concur.

DECIDED MARCH 16, 1983
REHEARING DENIED MARCH 29, 1983.

William S. Hardman, for appellant.
Harmon T. Smith, Jr., Jefferson W. Willis, for appellees.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

In its mоtion for rehearing, appellees contend that the ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‍court overlooked and failed to apply the case of . Clement is clearly distinguishable from the present case. Unlike Clement, the record in this case does not show that “Hawkins Plumbing Company, Inc.” was the registered trade name of B. L. Hawkins as an individual. Moreover: “[t]he designation [‘Hawkins Plumbing Company, Inc.‘] connotes a corporate entity.” . See also .

Motion for rehearing denied.