Legal Opinion
Passmore v. Hartford Insurance
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided October 5, 1987No. 86-8522PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge:
I
The issue in this appeal is whether Hartford’s supplemental insurance form satisfied the mandate of Georgia law, § 33-34-5(b), for the rejection of optional personal injury protection benefits. The district judge held that the form did not satisfy the statute’s requirements. As we find that Hartford’s form meets the substantial compliance test now followed by the Georgia courts, the decision of the district court is reversed.
*1520II.
The plaintiff-appellee’s husband, James Passmore, held automobile insurance with the Hartford Company. In 1980, Mr. Pass-more signed a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Flewellen v. Atlanta Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1983
- Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company v. J.O. Anderson, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
- Atlanta Casualty Co. v. FlewellenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Passmore v. Hartford InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1987