State Auto Property & Casualty Co. v. Matty
Supreme Court of Georgia
1DissentBenham, Justice
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion because it disregards a long line of precedent in this state that an insurance policy is a contract and, if there is any ambiguity to be found therein, the ambiguity must be construed against the insurer. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Staton, 286 Ga. 23 (685 SE2d 263) (2009); Richards v. Hanover Ins. Co., 250 Ga. 613 (1) (299 SE2d 561) (1983); Mason v. Allstate Ins. Co., 298 Ga. App. 308 (1) (a) (680 SE2d 168) (2009); Perry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 297 Ga. App. 9 (1) (676 SE2d 376) (2008) (“if ... a provision is susceptible to more than…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Claussen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1989
- Richards v. Hanover InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. StatonSupreme Court of Georgia · 2009
- Alea London Ltd. v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2007
- Cincinnati Insurance v. PageCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.