Opinion

UNIVERSAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Lowery

257 Ga. 363 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Sep 9, 1987

Full text

Universal Security Insurance Company v. Lowery

Weltner, Justice. We granted certiorari in Universal Security Ins. Co. v. Lowery, 182 Ga. App. 125 (354 SE2d 840) (1987), in order to consider the adequacy of corroboration required by OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (2). The facts are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. While the evidence here may be subject to credibility concerns, it is nonetheless sufficient. The statutory requirement in cases where there is no physical contact is “description by the claimant of how the occurrence occurred corroborated by an eyewitness to the occurrence other than the claimant.” If the General Assembly had intended to *364 require corroboration by a disinterested third party, it could have so specified. Decided September 9, 1987. Lane, O’Brien & Coburn, Stanley A. Coburn, Stephen J. Caswell, for appellant. Lloyd W. Hoffspiegel, D. Glenn Brock, for appellee. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 26, 1998

Bone v. State Farm Mutual Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 29, 1994

American Ambassador Casualty Co. v. Cash

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 22, 1994

Fisher v. Clarendon National Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 14, 1993

Murphy v. Georgia General Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Apr 19, 1993

Garrett v. Standard Guaranty Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 19, 1991

Scott v. Allstate Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 2, 1991

Atlanta Casualty Insurance v. Crews

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 10, 1990

Parentheticals

rejecting contention that corroboration required under statute is corroboration by a disinterested third party where statute refers only to "eyewitness”
Dunn v. Doe
“While the evidence here may be subject to credibility concerns, it is nonetheless sufficient.... If the General Assembly had intended to require corroboration by a disinterested third party, it could have so specified.”
Leslie v. Doe
“While the evidence here may be subject to credibility concerns, it is nonetheless sufficient. . . . If the General Assembly had intended to require corroboration by a disinterested third party, it could have so specified.”
Tyrone Leslie v. John Doe
eyewitness corroboration by another claimant permitted
Lovelady v. Alfa Mutual Insurance