Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Sears, Presiding Justice.
Certiorari was granted to consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly construed an insurance policy’s provisions governing the limit of insurance applicable to coverage for employee dishonesty. Having reviewed the record in light of certain stipulations concerning the policy made by the parties before the trial court, we determine that the Court of Appeals’ decision was correct. Therefore, we affirm.
*735Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc. (“Sherman”), purchased a commercial insurance policy issued by the Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) that provided coverage for,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Claussen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1989
- Columbia Heights Motors, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Jefferson Pilot Life Insurance v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
- A.B.S. Clothing Collection, Inc. v. Home InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Crawford v. CrumpCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State Auto Property & Casualty Co. v. MattySupreme Court of Georgia · 2010
- Banks v. Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2009
- Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2018
- State Auto Property & Casualty Co. v. MattySupreme Court of Georgia · 2010
- Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2017
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.