Legal Opinion
Bankers Insurance v. Taylor
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided September 23, 1996No. S96A1167PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Fletcher, Presiding Justice.
In this declaratory judgment action, Bankers Insurance Company contends that OCGA § 33-34-3 (a) (2) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The trial court entered judgment against Bankers. Because the McCarranFerguson Act removes laws regulating insurance from Commerce Clause scrutiny, we affirm.
Nadine Taylor is a Florida resident who obtained automobile insurance with Bankers Insurance. Taylor’s policy did not provide bodily injury or uninsured motorist coverage. Taylor was involved in an accident in Georgia with Cynthia…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Von Hoffman v. City of QuincySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Prudential Insurance v. BenjaminSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Hoopeston Canning Co. v. CullenSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Continental Insurance v. Equity Residential Properties TrustCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2002
- Daniels v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1998
- Daniels v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
- Hendrix v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2003
- Daniels v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.