Legal Opinion

Ericson v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 27, 1964No. 40627PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bell, Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff in error insists that the settlement acquired by the insurer from the one she sues which purports to release her from all liability arising from the automobile collision is not binding on her for the reasons that it was not secured with her knowledge or approval, that she had no contractual relationship with the insurer, and that the insurer was not acting as her agent in making the settlement. These contentions have no merit.

While the insurance contract has not been made a part of the record in this case, the admissions and the evidence show conclusively…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. BrooksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1963
  2. Liner v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  2. Wolverine Insurance v. SorroughCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  3. DeJarnette v. Federal Kemper InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1984
  4. Christian v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
  5. H. Y. Akers & Sons, Inc. v. St. Louis Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969

24 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