Modestino v. Allstate Ins. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v. Gates

    134 Ga. App. 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 12 times
    In Gates the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) contended that the insured failed to comply with the same two provisions, notice to the company and the Department of Public Safety.

    The statements are certainly additional factors which rendered the denial of motions for summary judgment proper and which the jury should have been allowed to consider in determining the question of waiver. Without these statements the evidence certainly does not establish waiver as a matter of law and demand a verdict in favor of Gates. The question should have been submitted to the jury at the conclusion of all the evidence. See, Browder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 126 Ga. App. 140 (2) ( 190 S.E.2d 110); Modestino v. Allstate Ins. Co., 125 Ga. App. 665 (2) ( 188 S.E.2d 830); Wolverine Ins. Co. v. Sorrough, 122 Ga. App. 556 (2b) ( 177 S.E.2d 819); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Paulk, 120 Ga. App. 445 ( 171 S.E.2d 153). Judgment reversed. Bell, C. J., and Webb, J., concur.

  2. Wright v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.

    818 F.2d 832 (11th Cir. 1987)   Cited 5 times

    In light of the plaintiff's material compliance with the policy provisions and the conduct of Commercial Union's agents, a factual question was created as to waiver. Cf. Modestino v. Allstate Ins. Co., 125 Ga. App. 665, 188 S.E.2d 830 (1972) (issue of fact as to whether insurance company had waived requirement of proof of loss where adjuster stated "he would handle the matter for the plaintiff"). Laughinghouse v. First of Georgia Ins. Co., 123 Ga. App. 189, 179 S.E.2d 675 (1971) ("[E]vidence as to a statement of [insurance company] official made to the plaintiff inquired as to when payment of the claim would be made, that everything was in line, and was being processed, and only a little time was necessary, was, if believed by the jury, sufficient to constitute a waiver of the filing of proof of loss. . . .").

  3. Brookins v. State Farm Fire and Gas Co.

    529 F. Supp. 386 (S.D. Ga. 1982)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that the determinative inquiry is into whether the plaintiff substantially complies with the proof of loss requirements prescribed in the policy

    Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Adams, 56 Ga. App. 5(2) [192 S.E. 90].Modestino v. Allstate Insurance Co., 125 Ga. App. 665, 668-69, 188 S.E.2d 830 (1972) (Eberhardt, J., dissenting). Furthermore, the terms and conditions in the subject policy were on file with the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Georgia, and, of course, the standard form is published in the Georgia Code. Additionally, while there is deposition testimony by Mrs. Brookins that she requested a copy of the insurance policy, neither plaintiffs nor plaintiffs' counsel ever made written request for a copy of the policy. Cf. Lanier, supra.