Patterson v. American Motorists Insurance

335 S.E.2d 721, 176 Ga. App. 238, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2278
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 26, 1985·No. 70320·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pope, Judge.

Did the trial court commit reversible error granting appellee insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the pertinent portion of the application for insurance in this case (set forth in the Appendix to this opinion) substantially complied with the applicable provisions of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (OCGA § 33-34-5) pertaining to applications prior to November 1, 1982? We find no error. Accord St. Paul Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Nixon, 252 Ga. 469 (314 SE2d 215) (1984); Chaney v. Ga. Mut. Ins. Co., 174 Ga. App. 734 (331 SE2d 78) (1985); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Womack, 174 Ga. App. 140 (329 SE2d 282) (1985); Reed v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 171 Ga. App. 126 (318 SE2d 746) (1984).1 See also Appendix II, Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Flewellen, 164 Ga. App. 885, 894 (300 SE2d 166) (1982).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

[239]

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

Patterson v. American Motorists Insurance, 335 S.E.2d 721, 176 Ga. App. 238, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

335 S.E.2d 721 (Patterson v. American Motorists Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance
343 S.E.2d 709 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)