Skip to main content
· 3/1/1916

Georgia Home Insurance v. Hoskins

Citations

  • 71 Fla. 282
  • 71 So. 285

Syllabus

<p>1. All parties litigant who are sui juris, including insurance companies and persons having property insured as well as others, in the eyes of the law, before the court, stand upon an equal footing entitled to equal rights and protection, and none to special privileges. All parties are free to make whatever contracts they please, so long as no fraud or deception is practiced and the contract is legal in all respects.</p> <p>2. Where a party voluntarily accepts a fire insurance policy from an insurance company, no fraud or deception being practiced, in an action brought upon such policy the insurance company may base its defense to such action upon the failure of the insured to comply with any of the provisions of such policy, provided the same are lawful.</p> <p>3. Where a person voluntarily accepts a fire insurance policy from an insurance company, no fraud or deception being practiced, containing the following provision: “This entire, policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement and indorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void * * * if the subject of insurance be personal property and be or become encumbered by a chattel mortgage,” when there is no element of waiver or estoppel, arising from knowledge of the company, or its agent, the execution of a chattel mortgage upon t,he property insured renders the policy void and constitutes a good defense to an action brought thereon. The insured is bound by the terms of the policy which he accepts, and the fact that no inquiries were made by the-company or its agent, and no representations were made by the insured in a written application or otherwise, cannot strike out such provision in the policy. Likewise, the encumbering- of the insured property by the execution of a chattel mortgage thereon subsequent to the issuance of an insuranee policy constitutes a good defense to an action brought thereon.</p> <p>4. No particular form of words is necessary to constitute a chattel mortgage; if, without regard to form, the

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding no overt act or pattern of behavior where doctor testified only that defendant was paranoid schizophrenic, likely to harm himself, suffer severe distress, deteriorating, delusional, not taking medication, not able to make treatment decision, and left halfway house
  • finding no overt act or pattern of behavior where doctor testified only that defendant was paranoid schizophrenic, likely to harm himself, suffer severe distress, deteriorating, delusional, not taking medication, not able to make treatment decision, and left halfway house

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Account, Cockrell, Ellis, Illness, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.