Encompass Ins. Co. of America v. Friedman

5 Citing cases

  1. Thornton v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Insu. Co.

    287 Ga. 379 (Ga. 2010)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that a suit under a policy with a provision similar to the one in this case was barred because the limitations period began to run on the date the loss occurred, rather than on the date the insurer's investigation window expired

    They can be significantly different, as demonstrated by the fact that the statute of limitation for contract claims is six years, see OCGA § 9-3-24, but the courts have nevertheless enforced much shorter contractual periods of limitation, including the one-year limitation in insurance policies like the one in this case. See, e.g., Encompass Ins. Co. of America v. Friedman, 299 Ga. App. 429, 431 ( 682 SE2d 694) (2009) (citing cases). The General Assembly has authorized the Insurance Commissioner to prescribe a standard fire insurance policy.

  2. Hoover v. Maxum Indem. Co..Maxum Indem. Co. v. Hoover.

    310 Ga. App. 291 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)

    To the extent that the statement was considered for the limited purpose to prove that Maxum had notice of the occurrence, it did not constitute inadmissible hearsay. See Encompass Ins. Co. of America v. Friedman, 299 Ga.App. 429, n. 1, 682 S.E.2d 694 (2009); Quiktrip Corp. v. Childs, 220 Ga.App. 463, 466(3), 469 S.E.2d 763 (1996). Moreover, an exception to the hearsay rule will be allowed from necessity “where necessity and particularized guarantees of trustworthiness are established.”

  3. Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Company

    712 S.E.2d 661 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)

    To the extent that the statement was considered for the limited purpose to prove that Maxum had notice of the occurrence, it did not constitute inadmissible hearsay. See Encompass Ins. Co. of America v. Friedman, 299 Ga. App. 429, n. 1 ( 682 SE2d 694) (2009); Quiktrip Corp. v. Childs, 220 Ga. App. 463, 466 (3) ( 469 SE2d 763) (1996). Moreover, an exception to the hearsay rule will be allowed from necessity "where necessity and particularized guarantees of trustworthiness are established."

  4. Nafra Worldwide, LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-02808-AT (N.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2013)   Cited 5 times

    Additionally, as Home Depot correctly points out, interpreting a contract as Nafra suggests would forever undo limitations on remedies. Cf. Encompass Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 682 S.E.2d 694, 696 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) ("Georgia law is clear that contractual limitations like the one presented here are valid and will be enforced by the courts); Livaditis v. American Cas. Co., 160 S.E.2d 449, 452 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968) ("Absent circumstances constituting waiver or estoppel, provisions creating a contractual statute of limitation are in general valid and binding."); Henkel Corp. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 2009 WL 2230813 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (enforcing a one-year-bar, which was incorporated by reference in the original contract, and dismissing plaintiff's claim). The Court notes a minor discrepancy in the dates of this alleged termination.

  5. Encompass Ins. Co. of America v. Friedman

    299 Ga. App. 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)

    April 1, 2009. Appeal from the 299 Ga. App. 429. Applications to the Supreme Court for Certiorari Denied.