Legal Opinion · Dissent

Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Giles

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 12, 1990No. A90A0289Published

1DissentDeen, Presiding Judge

I must respectfully dissent. I find no grounds for reversal for any of the reasons assigned by appellant. Although there are no Georgia cases addressing the issues raised, it is clear under the facts here and the law as established in other jurisdictions that the policy issued by appellant obligated it to pay $10,000 per person under the limits of liability provision and likewise imposed additional duty to pay interest accruing after judgment was entered on the entire amount in any suit it defended.

Insurance policy provisions for post judgment interest have, almost without exception…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mutual of Enumclaw v. HarveyIdaho Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Casey v. CalhounOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Aetna InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988
  4. Starke v. Allstate Insurance Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. Dibenedetto v. Estate of DibenedettoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API