Legal Opinion

Atlantic Mutual Fire Insurance v. Pruitt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 14, 1940No. 28088PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

The first contention of the insurance company, as stated by its counsel, is “that the evidence demands a verdict in favor of the defendant insurance company because it appears from the evidence and all proper inferences therefrom that the proximate cause of the loss and damage to the insured merchandise was a tornado, and that fire occurred in the wreckage immediately following the collapse of the building containing the insured stock of merchandise as the immediate, direct, proximate, and natural result of the destruction of the building by the tornado.”…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Western Assur. Co. of Toronto v. J. H. Mohlman Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
  2. Nalley v. Hanover Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
  3. Davis v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Hanover, Fire Insurance v. PruittCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
  5. Smith v. Ætna InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sammons v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
  2. Ready-Mix Concrete Co. v. RapeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
  3. Ready-Mix Concrete Co. v. RapeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
  4. Sammons v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API