Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marsh v. Zurich Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 3, 1968No. 43726Published

1DissentDeen, Judge

Where provisions of the contract are clear and free of ambiguity we can afford them no construction save that which they clearly import. Great Amer. Ins. Co. v. Lipe, 116 Ga. App. 169, 174 (156 SE2d 490). Where the meaning is plain and obvious, the contract should be construed as literally provided therein. Hansen v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 116 Ga. App. 528, 530 (157 SE2d 768).

As pointed out in Wise v. American Cas. Co., 117 Ga. App. 575, 576, supra, “the quoted exclusionary clause did not preclude benefits under the policy only in the event that the workmen’s compensation was actually…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hansen v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
  2. Great American Insurance Co. v. LipeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
  3. Wise v. American Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
  4. Di Mauro v. Aetna InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API