Legal Opinion

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Garland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 12, 1950No. 33024PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.

In the statement of facts, we have used the expression “the insurance carrier claims” and “contends” certain things. In using the words “claims" and “contentions” we do not mean to intimate that the letters were not written, or the contentions not made in good faith. But we simply mean to state that so far as the records are concerned, there are claims and contentions, which as against the claims and contentions of the claimant, would as probably in the record, form an issue of fact for the board to determine. So far as this court is concerned, we are dealing only with the question of law.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. OakleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1945
  2. White Provision Co. v. CulbreathCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Turner v. Baggett Transportation Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
  2. Greene v. McIntyreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
  3. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. SnyderCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
  4. Womack v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
  5. Village Creations, Ltd. v. Crawfordville Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1974

1 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