Continental American Life Insurance Company
Warren S. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COVERAGE BUSINESS, Defendant-Appellant.
Usa Legal of Appeals,
Jan. 3, 1984.
Steven Schaikewitz, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.
Alexander W. Suto, Kevin C. Greene, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal through the United States District Court for Northern District of Georgia.
Before TJOFLAT and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Warren S. Griffin, the plaintiff, filed this diversity action inside Northern District of Georgia trying to enforce their perfected protection interest in all insurance coverage commissions owed to Norman Greenberg, a member of staff of defendant Continental United states life insurance coverage Company. The defendant insurance company answered that Greenberg additionally owed it cash, and that its contractual right of set-off had priority over Griffin's perfected security curiosity about the commissions. The area courtroom granted summary view in support of Griffin, finishing that under Georgia legislation a perfected safety interest would conquer a contractual right of set-off, which attraction accompanied. There are no material realities in dispute. As this concern had never ever already been clearly answered by a Georgia court, we certified the next issues into Supreme legal of Georgia pursuant to Rule 36 of that courtroom, formal Code of Ga.Ann. Sec. 15-2-9 (Michie 1982), Ga.Code Ann. Sec. 24-4536 (Harrison 1981):
1. Under Georgia law does Article Nine (Secured Transactions) of the Uniform industrial Code connect with contractual legal rights of set-off?
2. If Article Nine relates to contractual legal rights of set-off, does the contractual right of set-off have actually concern over a perfected protection curiosity about the same fund?3. If Article Nine doesn't apply to contractual liberties of set-off, does a contractual right of set-off have actually priority over a perfected safety desire for equivalent investment?
4. Under Georgia legislation, is a security desire for a future account subject to a contractual right of set-off that is included in the same document creating the account to which the security interest becomes attached?
In Continental United States Life Insurance Coverage Company v. Griffin, 251 Ga. 412, 306 S.E.2d 285 (1983) (attached hereto as an appendix), the Georgia Supreme legal replied 1st question affirmatively and second concern negatively, thereby preventing any need to deal with one other questions. This basically means, the Georgia Supreme legal reached the exact same conclusion while the area judge below. Consequently, the decision to give summary judgment in favor of Griffin is
Within the Supreme Legal of Georgia
Decided: Sept. 8, 1983
39834. CONTINENTAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES CO. v. GRIFFIN
Plaintiff-appellee, Warren S. Griffin ("Griffin") brought this variety activity in the us District Court for Northern District of Georgia against defendant-appellant, Continental American Life Insurance Company ("Continental"). Griffin sought to enforce his perfected security desire for fifty percent (50%) of insurance commissions payable to Norman Greenberg ("Greenberg"), a worker of Continental. Continental responded alleging it had been eligible to a set-off against every sums which may be payable to Greenberg pursuant to his employment contract. The case had been decided on cross-motions for summary wisdom in favor of Griffin. Continental appealed toward United States Court of Appeals the Eleventh Circuit which certified questions of condition legislation for our quality. (Rule 36 for the Supreme Court of Georgia. See, OCGA Sec. 15-2-9; Code Ann. Sec. 24-4536). The questions and our responses are:
1. Under Georgia law does Article Nine (Secured deals) for the Uniform industrial Code connect with contractual liberties of set-off? Yes.
2. If Article Nine pertains to contractual liberties of set-off, does the contractual right of set-off have priority over a perfected security fascination with exactly the same investment? No.
Two other certified questions need not be answered in view of your reactions to these questions.
In 1971, Greenberg had been indebted into the First nationwide Bank of Atlanta in the quantity of $100, 000 pursuant to a promissory note upon which Griffin acted as indemnitor. On September 20, 1977, Greenberg's debts were discharged in personal bankruptcy. Griffin was called upon to meet the $100, 000 indebtedness.
During the time, Greenberg was utilized by National lifetime of Vermont as an insurance coverage agent. To compensate for Griffin's payment of this very first National Bank financial obligation, alongside debts, Greenberg agreed to indemnify and hold harmless Griffin for almost any payments created by Griffin on the behalf of Greenberg. Associated with the indemnification, on 17, 1976, Greenberg and Griffin executed a written arrangement wherein Greenberg granted Griffin a security desire for 50% of all new or revival commissions that Greenberg would-be entitled so long as their financial obligation to Griffin remained unhappy.
After getting into the indemnification arrangement with Griffin, Greenberg commenced employment with Continental. Associated with this employment, Greenberg signed an understanding allowing Continental to hold amounts owed Continental by Greenberg from commissions due him from Continental.
You might also like
Pet Grooming Supplies Deshedding Tool for All Large & Small Dogs, Cats and Pets. Rabbits to Horses with Short to Long Hair. Dramatically Reduce Shedding and Your Pet Care Time.
Pet Products (GranPaws)