State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Burden
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Judge.
1. It is true, before the issue of co-operation could arise, Watts would have to be an insured under the terms of the policy. If this issue were determined favorably to Watts (or the plaintiff), then whether he had complied with the conditions imposed by the policy would become an issue in determining whether he was entitled to its benefits. If there was an issue that Watts was not an insured under the terms of the policy, it was not inconsistent for the insurer to claim that, even if Watts prevailed on this issue, he still was not entitled to the benefits of the policy because he…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Loftin v. United States Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Ericson v. HillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Sims T. V., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Cotton States Mutual Insurance v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Milam v. TerrellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wolverine Insurance v. SorroughCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- H. Y. Akers & Sons, Inc. v. St. Louis Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Perry v. SaledaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. GordonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.