SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Carter
This text of 138 S.E.2d 590 (SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Carter) 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.
Opinion
1. A provision in a policy of fire insurance that no action thereon should be maintainable unless commenced within twelve months next after the occurrence of the loss is valid and constitutes a condition precedent to the maintenance of the action, or a limitation of time within which it may be brought.
2. An action brought after the expiration of twelve months next following the occurrence of the loss is barred by the provision of the policy, and this is true although the petition shows that it is a renewal of a previous action brought within the twelve month period and that it was brought within six months after the first suit had been voluntarily dismissed. Gross v. Globe &c. Ins. Co., 140 Ga. 531 (79 SE 138); Woodall v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 33 Ga. App. 694 (128 SE 69).
3. Where it appears from the allegations of the petition that the loss occurred more than twelve months before the suit was filed and from the contract itself that it contained a twelvemonth limitation, the petition is subject to a general demurrer. Peeples v. Western Fire Ins. Co., 96 Ga. App. 39, 41(1) (99 SE2d 349).
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
138 S.E.2d 590, 110 Ga. App. 382, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springfield-fire-marine-insurance-company-v-carter-gactapp-1964.