Atlantic Steel Co. v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Atlantic Steel Co. v. Hartford Fire Insurance

148 S.E. 286, 39 Ga. App. 680, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 510

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1929

Docket19295

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 148 S.E. 286 (Atlantic Steel Co. v. Hartford Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atlantic Steel Co. v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 148 S.E. 286, 39 Ga. App. 680, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bkoyi.es, O. J.

This was a suit upon the terms of a “use and occupancy” clause of a policy of insurance. By consent the case was submitted to the trial judge, without the intervention of a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, and a verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of the defendant insurance company. It was shown in the agreed statement of facts that an explosion had occurred in one of the several mills of the Atlantic Steel Company, which resulted in the closing of that particular mill for fifteen working days, and that the shutting down of the mill was covered by the “use and occupancy” clause of the policy. However, since a contract of insurance is one of indemnity, the burden [681]*681was upon the plaintiff to show that the temporary closing of the mill had caused it an actual monetary loss (payment for the physical damage to the mill caused by the explosion having been made by the insurance company). The agreed statement of facts failed to show affirmatively that the plaintiff had sustained any actual monetary loss on account of the temporary closing of the particular mill in question, and the trial judge did not err in so finding. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned in the motion for a new trial.

Decided May 15, 1929. Jones, Evins, Powers & Jones, for plaintiff. Spalding, MacDougald & Sibley, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bkoyi.es, O. J.

This was a suit upon the terms of a “use and occupancy” clause of a policy of insurance. By consent the case was submitted to the trial judge, without the intervention of a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, and a verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of the defendant insurance company. It was shown in the agreed statement of facts that an explosion had occurred in one of the several mills of the Atlantic Steel Company, which resulted in the closing of that particular mill for fifteen working days, and that the shutting down of the mill was covered by the “use and occupancy” clause of the policy. However, since a contract of insurance is one of indemnity, the burden [681]*681was upon the plaintiff to show that the temporary closing of the mill had caused it an actual monetary loss (payment for the physical damage to the mill caused by the explosion having been made by the insurance company). The agreed statement of facts failed to show affirmatively that the plaintiff had sustained any actual monetary loss on account of the temporary closing of the particular mill in question, and the trial judge did not err in so finding. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned in the motion for a new trial.

Decided May 15, 1929. Jones, Evins, Powers & Jones, for plaintiff. Spalding, MacDougald & Sibley, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 286, 39 Ga. App. 680, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-steel-co-v-hartford-fire-insurance-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack