International Indemnity Co. v. Enfinger
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Deen, Presiding Judge.
1. When this case first appeared before this court, Intl. Indem. Co. v. Enfinger, 170 Ga. App. 443 (317 SE2d 841) (1984), two different views were expressed on the effect and use of OCGA § 33-34-5 (c). The majority opinion favored a type of wild card unlimited use, applying to both pre and post March 1, 1975, policies, and specifically holding that a notice given under OCGA § 33-34-5 (c) could operate as a curative mechanism for an insurance application which was defective under OCGA § 33-34-5 (b). The dissent, however, expounded the limited use of subsection (c) as…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Enfinger v. International Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1984
- Government Employees Insurance v. MooneySupreme Court of Georgia · 1983
- International Indemnity Co. v. EnfingerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- Montgomery v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1984
- Southern Guaranty Insurance v. RowlandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
3Cited by2 opinions
- Northside Hospital Inc. v. E. Kendrick SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2018
- International Indemnity Co. v. EnfingerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986