Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wiley

8 Citing cases

  1. Dillard v. Schilke

    352 Ga. App. 158 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)

    " (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wiley , 220 Ga. App. 442, 443 (2), 469 S.E.2d 302 (1996). So viewed, the evidence shows that Willie and Veleria married on December 25, 1969 in Mississippi and had two children.

  2. Davis v. Johnson

    280 Ga. App. 318 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 17 times

    This Court must view all of the evidence and every presumption arising therefrom most favorably toward upholding the jury's verdict. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wiley, 220 Ga. App. 442, 443 (2) ( 469 SE2d 302) (1996). "It is well settled that a strong presumption exists in favor of the validity of jury verdicts."

  3. Cottrell, Inc. v. Williams

    596 S.E.2d 789 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    " Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wiley, 220 Ga. App. 442, 443 (2) ( 469 SE2d 302) (1996). The incident at issue occurred shortly after Williams had refueled his truck at a terminal in Jacksonville, Florida. While en route to I-95, according to Williams, he drove over some rough sections of roadway.

  4. Williamson v. Strickland Smith, Inc.

    263 Ga. App. 431 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 12 times

    " (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wiley, 220 Ga. App. 442 ( 469 S.E.2d 302) (1996). Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that during the 1997-1998 growing season, Williamson and Top Quality entered into a joint venture to grow onions together on a 45 acre tract of land in Tattnall County. Top Quality, in addition to providing the land, was to provide all the labor, including the planting and harvesting of the onions.

  5. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Kastner

    233 Ga. App. 594 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    This enumeration is also without merit. See generally Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wiley, 220 Ga. App. 442 (1) ( 469 S.E.2d 302) (1996). 3. Finally, Cincinnati contends that the court erred in concluding that the Kastners' testimony was not impeached and should not have been disregarded under OCGA § 24-9-85 (b). Contrary to Cincinnati's contentions, we find no error.

  6. Jackson Nat. Life v. Snead

    231 Ga. App. 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 19 times
    In Snead, the trial court found ambiguity in an application question much clearer than Pacific Life's alcoholism question: “Have you smoked cigarettes in the past 12 months?” and “HAS THE PERSON PROPOSED FOR INSURANCE: Smoked cigarettes within the last 12 months?” 231 Ga.App. at 411, 499 S.E.2d at 177.

    As discussed in Division 1, above, the evidence on this issue was conflicting and disputed, and a directed verdict in favor of Jackson National was not demanded by the evidence. See generally Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wiley, 220 Ga. App. 442, 443 (2) ( 469 S.E.2d 302). Compare Celtic Life Ins. Co. v. Monroe, 220 Ga. App. 38, 39-40 (2) ( 467 S.E.2d 360), and Jennings v. Life Ins. Co. of Ga., 212 Ga. App. 140 ( 441 S.E.2d 479) (evidence undisputed that insureds misrepresented medical conditions on insurance applications.) (b) Jackson National also argues that a directed verdict on the issue of materiality under OCGA § 33-24-7 (b) (2) and (3) was demanded by the evidence at trial.

  7. Padilla v. Melendez

    228 Ga. App. 460 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 25 times
    Noting that trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion when it summarily denied a request for a guardian ad litem without hearing evidence or arguments

    "We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, because the trial court has not had opportunity to consider them." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wiley, 220 Ga. App. 442, 444 (4) ( 469 S.E.2d 302) (1996). Moreover, the mother clearly acquiesced in the trial court's conduct of the hearing.

  8. Huckaby v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of Amer

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-299(MTT) (M.D. Ga. Oct. 14, 2011)

    Thus, the Court will not address this payment directly, but simply state that its assumption is that the Defendant intends, if needed, to argue that any amount awarded to the Plaintiff should be set off by the insurer's payment to the mortgagee. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance. Co. v. Wiley, 220 Ga. App. 442, 442, 469 S.E.2d 302, 303 (1996). Georgia's Valued Policy Statute provides: "Whenever any policy of insurance is issued to a natural person or persons insuring a specifically described one or two family residential building or structure located in this state against loss by fire and the building or structure is wholly destroyed by fire without fraudulent or criminal fault on the part of the insured or one acting in his behalf, the amount of insurance set forth in the policy relative to the building or structure shall be taken conclusively to be the value of the property.