General Mutual Insurance Company v. Dennis

5 Citing cases

  1. M&F Bank v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.

    144 So. 3d 222 (Ala. 2013)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that title to certain property was marketable in an action between a mortgagee bank and its title-insurance company

    “There are numerous decisions by Alabama's appellate courts to the effect that an insured's failure to cooperate absolves the insurer from its responsibilities under the policy. For example, in General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dennis, 280 Ala. 434, 438, 194 So.2d 838, 841 (1967), the Supreme Court held that ‘[t]he cooperation clause, which the insurer has a perfect right to insist upon, and which will be enforced where the insurer shows that it has been breached, ... means that the insured must live up to his obligation under the contract and cooperate with the insurer, and ... it is inherent in the word “cooperation” as between the insured and the insurer that there be no collusion with the plaintiff.’ The Dennis case, however, was a suit brought by the insurer seeking only a declaratory judgment that it was under no further obligation to the insured.

  2. M&F Bank v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.

    No. 1111525 (Ala. Aug. 16, 2013)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    "There are numerous decisions by Alabama's appellate courts to the effect that an insured's failure to cooperate absolves the insurer from its responsibilities under the policy. For example, in General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dennis, 280 Ala. 434, 438, 194 So. 2d 838, 841 (1967), the Supreme Court held that '[t]he cooperation clause, which the insurer has a perfect right to insist upon, and which will be enforced where the insurer shows that it has been breached, ... means that the insured must live up to his obligation under the contract and cooperate with the insurer, and ... it is inherent in the word "cooperation" as between the insured and the insurer that there be no collusion with the plaintiff.' The Dennis case, however, was a suit brought by the insurer seeking only a declaratory judgment that it was under no further obligation to the insured.

  3. Best v. State Dept. of Revenue

    423 So. 2d 859 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    On disputed questions of fact, in an ore tenus hearing, it is the province of the trial court to make a decision. General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dennis, 280 Ala. 434, 194 So.2d 838 (Ala. 1967). Therefore, the trial court's finding that the taxpayer "should have included as income" the gain from the sale of property is affirmed, as clearly such a finding is supported by the evidence.

  4. Harden v. Harden

    418 So. 2d 159 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982)   Cited 14 times

    Additionally, where, as here, the evidence is in conflict, it is the function of the trier of fact, in this case the trial court, to resolve the conflict and reach a decision. General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dennis, 280 Ala. 434, 194 So.2d 838 (1967); Haas v. Madison County Board of Education, 380 So.2d 873 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 380 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1980). The trial court's resolution of the conflict will not be reversed on appeal unless palpably erroneous.

  5. Cordell v. Poteete

    331 So. 2d 400 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 11 times

    Here, there was a conflict between the doctor's testimony and that of the plaintiff. And, where there is a conflict in the testimony of witnesses, the trier of fact has the duty to resolve it as best it can under the circumstances, General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dennis, 280 Ala. 434, 194 So.2d 838. The trial court resolved this conflict in favor of the competence of defendant. Of further significance is the absence of defendant's testimony from the record.