Legal Opinion
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Sewell
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided January 5, 1967No. 23793PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Chief Justice.
The controlling question is whether or not the charge that loss of sight for all practical purposes conforms to the policy provision “entire” loss of sight. We are not aided by Cato v. Aetna Life &c. Co., 164 Ga. 392 (138 SE 787); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 194 Ga. 138 (20 SE2d 761); and Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Barron, 198 Ga. 1 (30 SE2d 879), which dealt with “total disability.” In those cases the kind of work was involved as well as the lack of mathematical certainty, while here, the degree of loss of sight is fixed by the invariable word “entire.” That…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cato v. Ætna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Mutual Life Insurance Co. of N. Y. v. BarronSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
3Cited by32 opinions
- Parris & Son, Inc. v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Cherokee Credit Life Insurance v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Cotton States Mutual Insurance v. HuttoCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Desai v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
- Boyes v. Continental Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.