LIFE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. v. Truett
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, Presiding Judge.
The only question for determination is whether the evidence demanded a verdict for the insurer under either the policy provision captioned “Effective Date” or the provision captioned “Incontestability.” While both provisions depend for their efficacy upon the status of the insured’s health •on the date of issuance of the policy, yet there is a distinction under judicial decisions in the manner of their interpretation.
The “Effective Date” provision is not interpreted literally. “The application for insurance was not made a part of the policy. A provision in a life…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. BellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- National Life & Accident Insurance v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
- Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad v. DouglasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- National Life & Accident Ins. v. GoolsbyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
- National Life & Accident Insurance v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hogan v. City-County HospitalCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Edge v. EdgeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Hills v. Savings Bank Life InsuranceMassachusetts Superior Court · 2007
- LIFE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. v. TruettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- World Insurance v. BlalockCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1993