Lucas v. Continental Casualty Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1ConcurrenceEberhardt, Judge
The insured here did not make a written application to the company for the insurance contract, just as was the case in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hale, 177 Ga. 632 (170 SE 875). Consequently, we have nothing to indicate that Lucas was put on notice of any limitation of authority on the part of the company’s soliciting agents — ■ which usually appears in the application — and, as Judge Jenkins said in National Life &c. Ins. Co. v. Cantrell, 49 Ga. App. 368 (175 SE 543), we “must yield to the authority of the Hale case.”
Running through the decisions in many cases, particularly since New York…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. HaleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- New York Life Insurance v. PattenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
- Reliance Life Insurance v. HightowerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919
- Simonton, Jones & Hatcher v. Liverpool, London & Globe InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874
- Lippman v. Ætna InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.