Legal Opinion
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided May 21, 1942No. 14094PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Justice.
The proper interpretation of the disability clause here relied upon is controlled by previous decisions of this court. Cato v. Ætna Life Insurance Co., 164 Ga. 392 (138 S. E. 787); Prudential Insurance Co. v. South, 179 Ga. 653 (177 S. E. 499, 98 A. L. R. 781). We think no clearer statement of the rule can be made than that in the South case, where, after stating that “the expressions ‘any occupation’ and ‘any work’ were thus converted into words of concrete signification, and should be construed to mean the ordinary employment of the particular person insured, or such…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cato v. Ætna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. SouthSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
- Asbury v. KennedyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1928
3Cited by16 opinions
- Giddens v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2006
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. SewellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
- Mutual Life Insurance Co. of N. Y. v. BarronCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
- Mutual Life Insurance Co. of N. Y. v. BarronSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- McPherson v. City of DawsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1966
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.