DocketNumber: 28081.
Citation Numbers: 61 Ga. App. 722
Judges: SUTTON, J.
Filed Date: 2/17/1940
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
Under the law and the facts the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and the court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial.
The undisputed evidence showed that John Collier, the insured, was admitted to the Milledgeville State Hospital from Walker County, Georgia, on November 27, 1935, and within a few days thereafter was given a thorough mental and physical examination by Dr. Bradford, one of the physicians at said hospital, who found him to be suffering with dementia paralytica caused from a syphilitic infection, the said disease having progressed to a point where it had affected the brain tissue of this patient; that this was a serious disease and was regarded as incurable; that Dr. Bradford continued to treat him until January 29, 1936, when he was transferred to Dr. Yarborough, another physician on the staff of that institution, who treated him until February 21, 1936, at which time Collier was released on furlough, from which he returned to the hospital on January 28, 1937, and was then under the care and treatment of Dr. Yarborough from that time until the date of his death on May 6, 1938; that Dr. Yarborough's diagnosis was the same as that of Dr. Bradford, this physician testifying that he was suffering with the same disease on his return to the hospital, and that he continued to suffer therewith until he died from this disease on the date just mentioned.
The policy was issued on July 13, 1936, while the insured was *Page 724 out of the hospital on furlough. The case was tried before the judge without the intervention of a jury, who found: "After hearing the evidence in said case, the court finds and holds as a matter of law that the limitation-of-insurance clause contained in said policy is void and of no effect for the reason that there is no limitation of time as to when the insured had been attended by a physician for any serious disease or complaint. . ." The defendant made a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and the defendant excepted to that judgment.
1. The same "limitation-of-insurance" clause was held valid and binding on the beneficiary of the insured in Gray v. Life Casualty Ins. Co.,
2. Consequently the court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for new trial.
Judgment reversed. Stephens, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.