Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Strickland v. American Home Assurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 3, 1988No. 75227Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBeasley, Judge

I respectfully dissent in part because the law which the majority applies supports the trial court’s order in its entirety.

The three medical bills about which I depart from the majority opinion were received by the insurer on February 19 attached to a *429standard loss notice accord form signed by the insurance producer’s representative. Two days later insurer’s claims adjuster contacted claimant and sent to her a benefit application form and, as it related to the medical bills, attending physicians’ report forms for her to take to the treating physicians. This was requested as proof that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
  2. Atlanta Casualty Co. v. FlewellenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
  3. Hufstetler v. International Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1987
  4. Waco Fire & Casualty Insurance v. GoudeauCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
  5. Canal Insurance v. HendersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API