London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Bernstein
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.
The question of dependency is one of fact and not of law. The court said in Georgia Power & Light Co. v. Patterson, 46 Ga. App. 7 (166 S. E. 255) : “The question of dependency is one of fact, to be determined, according to the facts and circumstances of each case, from the amounts, frequency and continuity of actual contributions of cash or supplies, the needs of the claimants, and the legal and moral- obligation of the employee. Under the facts of this case, the commission was fully authorized to find that partial dependency existed.” See, in this connection, Maryland Casualty Co. v.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Southern Railway Co. v. HobbsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- American Mutual Liability Insurance v. CurrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Moore v. DozierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Wilson v. Swift & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1942
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Insurance Co. of North America v. CooleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Westbrook v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967