Queen Tufting Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

239 S.E.2d 27, 239 Ga. 843, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1352
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 20, 1977
Docket32449
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 239 S.E.2d 27 (Queen Tufting Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Queen Tufting Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 239 S.E.2d 27, 239 Ga. 843, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1352 (Ga. 1977).

Opinion

Hall, Justice.

This court granted the application for writ of certiorari to review the decision and judgment of the Court of Appeals in Queen Tufting Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 141 Ga. App. 792 (234 SE2d 354) (1977). The *844 Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of a summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that plaintiffs failure to file suit within the time stated in the insurance contract barred the action. The provision of the contract stated: "No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any Court of law or equity unless the insured shall have fully complied with all the requirements of this policy, nor unless commenced within twelve (12) months next after the happening of the loss, unless a longer period of time is provided by applicable statute.”

Argued September 12, 1977 Decided October 20, 1977. Mitchell, Mitchell, Coppedge, Boyett & Wester, William I. Boyett, for appellant. Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Frederick E. Link, Robert L. Pennington, for appellee.

The loss occurred approximately two and one-half years prior to the filing of the suit.

A majority of the Court of Appeals held that Code § 3-705, which provides for a six-year limitation on contract actions, was inapplicable. Three judges dissented. In our opinion, Code § 3-705 is the applicable statute.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who concurs in the judgment only, and Marshall, J., who is disqualified.

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

Related

Atwood v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
Appellate Court of Illinois, 2006
Atwood v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
845 N.E.2d 68 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2006)
Salcedo v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
38 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D. Massachusetts, 1998)
Wabash Power Equipment Co. v. International Insurance
540 N.E.2d 960 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1989)
Brookins v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
529 F. Supp. 386 (S.D. Georgia, 1982)
Nicholson v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance
517 F. Supp. 1046 (N.D. Georgia, 1981)
Gravely v. Southern Trust Insurance
258 S.E.2d 753 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Herring v. Middle Georgia Mutual Insurance
254 S.E.2d 904 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Decatur Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. York Insurance
250 S.E.2d 524 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Draughn v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
241 S.E.2d 52 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 S.E.2d 27, 239 Ga. 843, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queen-tufting-company-v-firemans-fund-insurance-company-ga-1977.