United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Woodward
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Quillian, Judge.
The principal question for determination is whether under the evidence there was a burglary within the coverage of the policy.
The insurance company contends that there was no “safe burglary” within the meaning of the policy since the evidence conclusively showed that there had been no entry into the safe by actual force and violence. It is true that the policy’s definition of safe burglary requires that there be a forcible and violent entry. However, coverage under the policy includes loss “by safe burglary or attempt thereat.” This language creates an ambiguity since…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Dependable Insurance Co. v. GibbsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962
- Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. BurkeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1963
- American Casualty Company v. SeckingerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Old Colony Insurance v. DresselCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Southern Insurance v. RayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Casey v. Highlands InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
- Fortson v. Cotton States Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
- Georgia International Life Insurance v. HardenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
- Garner v. Government Employees InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.