Cotton States Mutual Insurance v. Proudfoot
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1DissentEvans, Judge
The result of the majority holding is that the only burden required of the insurer is to show that it acted with diligence and in good faith in seeking to obtain the insured’s cooperation. That not only is in direct contravention of the "law of this case” as established in Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Proudfoot, 123 Ga. App. 397 (181 SE2d 305), but is in contravention of the law of this State as established by prior decisions of the Court of Appeals, to wit: Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Carmical, 99 Ga. App. 98, 103 (107 SE2d 700); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wendler, 117 Ga. App. 227,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Wolverine Insurance v. SorroughCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
- Croker v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1969
- McCurry v. McCurrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
- Jones v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.