Legal Opinion

Minter v. Georgia Piggly-Wiggly Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided December 3, 1937No. 11921PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. While there is authority for the proposition that where one undertakes to procure insurance for another, and is guilty of fraud or negligence in his undertaking, he is liable for loss or damage to the limit of the amount of the agreed policy (Thomas v. Funkhouser, 91 Ga. 478, 481, 18 S. E. 312; Elam v. Smithdeal Realty &c. Co., 182 N. C. 599, 109 S. E. 632, 18 A. L. R. 1210, notes, 1214-1220; Rezac v. Zima, 96 Kan. 752, 153 Pac. 500, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1035; 32 C. J. 1087, 1088, and cit.), such a rule would have no application where, as in this case, an employer,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Elam v. Smithdeal Realty & InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  2. Elam v. . Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Rezac v. ZimaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
  4. Thomas v. FunkhouserSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Beiter v. Decatur Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Georgia · 1966
  2. S & a CORPORATION v. Berger & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
  3. Home Building & Loan Assn. v. HesterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
  4. Christensen v. Roberds of Atlanta, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
  5. J. Smith Lanier & Co. v. Southeastern Forge, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 2006

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

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

Powered by the Exa API