Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fire & Casualty Insurance v. Fields

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 12, 1956No. 36202Published

1DissentQuillian, J.

The defendant insists that it was not liable on the contract because the plaintiffs violated one of the terms of the policy. The policy provided: “Conditions suspending or restricting insurance. Unless otherwise provided in writing added hereto this company shall not be liable for loss occurring (A) . . . (B) while described building, whether intended for occupancy by owner or tenant, is vacant or unoccupied beyond a period of sixty consecutive days.” The agreed statement of facts shows that the property was vacant for more than 60 consecutive days. Therefore, the only question to bq…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Corporation of the Royal Exchange Assurance v. FranklinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
  2. Everett-Ridley-Ragan Co. v. Traders InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  3. Nalley v. Hanover Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
  4. May v. Globe & Rutgers Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
  5. McAfee v. Dixie Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916

2 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