Legal Opinion
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Azar
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 8, 1961No. 38525PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, Judge.
The first contention of the insurers, as raised by both the general grounds and special ground 5, is that the claimants’ evidence utterly failed to establish that the damage was caused by malicious mischief and vandalism as defined in the insurance policy and by windstorm, all as alleged in the petitions. It appears that there is no serious contention that the damage was caused by windstorm, but rather that the damage was caused by malicious mischief and vandalism as defined in the policy. A search of the cases indicates that as applied to insurance policy coverage, the term,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Travelers Insurance v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. CorbettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
- Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Insurance Co. of BaltimoreDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1945
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Gate City National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
- Continental Casualty Co. v. OwenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Battishill v. Farmers Alliance InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2006
- Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers Mutual Casualty Insurance v. HillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Stonewall Insurance v. FaroneCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Livaditis v. American Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- King v. North River Insurance CompanySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.