Favors v. Bankers Health & Life Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Favors v. Bankers Health & Life Insurance

89 S.E. 1048, 18 Ga. App. 522, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1088

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1916

Docket7192

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E. 1048 (Favors v. Bankers Health & Life 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

Favors v. Bankers Health & Life Insurance, 89 S.E. 1048, 18 Ga. App. 522, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1088 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, G. J.

This was an action to recover the aggregate amount of certain weekly insurance premiums paid by the insured anterior to the forfeiture of -two insurance policies on account of her failure to pay premiums in accordance with the terms of the contract. This contract stipulated that “if agent fails to call for dues, all policyholders are required to remit their premiums to the nearest office of the company, or forfeit what they have paid the company.” The fact that, the insured had paid premiums, before or at the time they fell due, to agents or collectors of the company, would not relieve her from the obligation to remit such premiums directly to the nearest office of the company, where no agent of the company called for or demanded payment of them when due. Under the allegations in the petition for certiorari, adopted as true by the judge who tried the easej no course of dealing between the parties appears which in legal effect amounted to a waiver by the insurer of the aforementioned stipulations, or authorized the insured to disregard them. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. November 34, 1915.

W. E. Buttles, for plaintiff. Nalley & Scott, for defendant.

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

Wade, G. J.

This was an action to recover the aggregate amount of certain weekly insurance premiums paid by the insured anterior to the forfeiture of -two insurance policies on account of her failure to pay premiums in accordance with the terms of the contract. This contract stipulated that “if agent fails to call for dues, all policyholders are required to remit their premiums to the nearest office of the company, or forfeit what they have paid the company.” The fact that, the insured had paid premiums, before or at the time they fell due, to agents or collectors of the company, would not relieve her from the obligation to remit such premiums directly to the nearest office of the company, where no agent of the company called for or demanded payment of them when due. Under the allegations in the petition for certiorari, adopted as true by the judge who tried the easej no course of dealing between the parties appears which in legal effect amounted to a waiver by the insurer of the aforementioned stipulations, or authorized the insured to disregard them. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. November 34, 1915.

W. E. Buttles, for plaintiff. Nalley & Scott, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 1048, 18 Ga. App. 522, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/favors-v-bankers-health-life-insurance-gactapp-1916.