Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Gillam
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Atkinson, Justice.
The plaintiff in error complains that the court erred in striking all of its defenses based upon fraud or material misrepresentations in the procurement of the contracts of insurance, on the ground that the incontestable clauses in the pol icies precluded the defendant from making such defense. The policy sued on in the first count, originally issued as a life-insurance policy, contained the clause: “This policy shall be (a) incontestable after it has been in force during the lifetime of the insured for a period of one year from its date of issue, provided premiums have been…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Stroehmann v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Greber v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesArizona Supreme Court · 1934
- Coodley v. New York Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Ness v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1934
- Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. ChildsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Auto Lease Company v. Central Mutual Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1958
- Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. BurkeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1963
- McGann v. Hobbs Lumber CompanyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1965
- Ballinger v. C. & S. BANKCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Reserve Life Insurance v. BeardenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.