Legal Opinion · Dissent

Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Gordon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 8, 2004No. A03A2222Published

1DissentBarnes, Judge

Because I believe the majority opinion represents the activist interpretation of an unambiguous statute, I must respectfully dissent.

The question in this case is, does the statute allow an insured to recover from his uninsured motorist carrier for the death of his son by an uninsured motorist? The plain language of the statute says yes. Under the language of his policy, however, the father could not recover from the uninsured motorist, because the policy specifies that the insured himself must suffer a bodily injury. The statute, on the other hand, does not require that an insured himself…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Moore v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. MurphySupreme Court of Georgia · 1970
  3. Busch v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1999
  4. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
  5. West American Insurance v. PopaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API