Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. McConnel

176 S.E. 911, 50 Ga. App. 87, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 629
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 2, 1934·No. 23845·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

G-uerby, J.

The policy of health and accident insurance in the present case provides: “-The acceptance of any premium, or the renewal of this policy at the expiration of any time for which it may have been issued or renewed, shall be at the option of the company.” The periods for which premiums were paid were one month. Under the express provisions of the policy, the insurer might refuse any premium tendered for ensuing periods and terminate the contract. The court therefore erred in overruling the demurrer to the petition alleging a breach of the contract of insurance by the company, and praying for damages in the amount of premiums paid, with legal interest. Nat. Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Chastain, 46 Ga. App. 842 (169 S. E. 380) ; Hall v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 48 Ga. App. 359 (172 S. E. 721).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. McConnel, 176 S.E. 911, 50 Ga. App. 87, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 629 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

176 S.E. 911 (Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. McConnel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

George L. Williams v. Mutual of Omaha
297 F.2d 876 (Fourth Circuit, 1962)
Rabb v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n
105 S.E.2d 396 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Harwell v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n
35 S.E.2d 160 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1945)
Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Wooley
179 S.W.2d 329 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1944)