Legal Opinion
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. N. A., Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided November 20, 1969No. 44841PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, Chief Judge.
The main question presented is whether the damage claimed was covered by the insurance contracts. Plaintiff argues that he is suing for the wilful and malicious damage to the flashing and the buildings and not solely for the theft or removal of the flashing. Defendants contend that the loss is an act of theft or vandalism in the course of theft which is expressly excluded under the vandalism coverage of the policies.
If the terms of an insurance contract are unambiguous we must construe them to mean what they say. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sewell, 223 Ga. 31 (153 SE2d…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sanfrantello v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Cherokee Credit Life Insurance v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. NewmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. SewellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
- Livaditis v. American Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Auto-Owners Insurance v. NeislerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2015
- Southern v. Sphere-Drake Ins. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
- Furgerson v. Cambridge Mutual Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1999
- Smith v. Shelby Insurance Co. of the Shelby Insurance GroupCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1996
- Southeastern Fire Insurance v. HeardDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.