United Insurance Co. of America v. Murray
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, Presiding Judge.
Defendant argues that the “house confinement” clause in Part Eleven of the policy must be construed literally; plaintiff contends that it should be liberally construed.
“While there is considerable authority supporting the view that ‘house confinement' clauses are to be literally construed, so as to preclude recovery where the insured for any reason, •with the possible exception of emergencies beyond his control, leaves the house, the great majority of cases supports the so-called liberal construction view, holding that while the house confinement clause must be complied…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Wade v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1934
- Purcell v. Washington Fidelity National InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1934
- Hines v. New England Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. MilderNebraska Supreme Court · 1950
- American Life & Accident Ins. v. NirdlingerMississippi Supreme Court · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bankers Health & Life Insurance v. FryhoferCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Pennsylvania Life Insurance v. BumbreyDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1987
- Continental Casualty Co. v. StephensonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Commercial Insurance v. GoodwinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973