Rabb v. Mutual Ben. Health and Acc. Ass'n
Decision Date | 18 September 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 37341,No. 2,37341,2 |
Parties | F. K. RABB v. MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH AND ACCIDENT ASSOCIATION |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
R. H. Jones, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
Hull, Willingham, Towill & Norman, W. Hale Barrett, Augusta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, 51 Ga.App. 341, 346, 180 S.E. 503, 506. Reservation of such right in the company should be strictly construed, but where the language is plain and unambiguous it must be given its reasonable intendment in accordance with the intention of the parties.
2. (a) Hall v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 48 Ga.App. 359, 172 S.E. 721. See also Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. McConnel, 50 Ga.App. 87, 176 S.E. 911; Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. Phinizy, 49 Ga.App. 304, 175 S.E. 387.
(b) An exception to this rule of course exists where a loss has occurred as to which a claim is pending or will be pending within the time limited in the policy for filing it, since the insurer cannot take advantage of a cancellation clause or an option-to-terminate clause in a policy so as to rid itself of an accrued liability. This rule of law explains and distinguished National Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 18 Ga.App. 494(2), 89 S.E. 633, relied upon by the plaintiff in error, for it was there held that even though an option-to-terminate clause existed in a combined life and health policy, the company was estopped to refuse to accept the monthly premium payment so as to relieve itself of liability for the death of the insured who had contracted a fatal illness during the time payments were made and accepted.
3. The policy in question contained the provision: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Mutual of Omaha
...Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 5 Cir., 140 F.2d 24 (applying the law of Florida); Rabb v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n., 98 Ga.App. 193, 105 S.E.2d 396 (where the option to accept any premium was reserved in the language of the policy here and there was atta......
-
Miller v. Mutual Ben. Health and Acc. Ass'n of Omaha
...Ass'n v. Cohen (8th Cir.1952), 194 F.2d 232, cert. denied 343 U.S. 965, 72 S.Ct. 1059, 96 L.Ed. 1362; Rabb v. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n, 1958, 98 Ga.App. 193, 105 S.E.2d 396; Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n v. Caver, 1934, 169 Miss. 554, 152 So. 897; and Ray v. Mutual Benefit He......
-
Chicago Insurance Company v. Camors
...loss. The authority of an insurance company to cancel a policy of insurance must be strictly construed, Rabb v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn., 98 Ga.App. 193(1), 105 S.E.2d 396; see also 45 C.J.S. Insurance § 445; and applicable provisions of the policy, or of a statute which by la......
-
Weber v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company
...an absolute right of renewal. A more recent case on the same subject adopting the rule announced in Lyon is Rabb v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, 98 Ga.App. 193, 105 S. E.2d 396. Among other cases in direct conflict with plaintiff's theory are Mutual Benefit Health & Acciden......