Court Opinion

ID: 9626307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:07:59.046658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:25.249228
License: Public Domain

Smith, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I do not agree with all that is said in Presiding Judge Andrews’s opinion, I do agree that in Case No. A01A2451, Security Life Insurance Company is entitled to a new trial on the Clarks’ remaining causes of action, including attorney fees. As to Case No. A01A2450, I further agree that St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company was entitled to have the supersedeas bond declared void.
I therefore respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
*40Decided April 12, 2002
Porter, Orrison & Dosier, J. Alexander Porter, King & Spalding, Byron Attridge, Benjamin F. Easterlin TV, S. Stewart Haskins II, for appellant (case no. A01A2450).
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, William D. Barwick, Teresa W. Roseborough, Carla W. McMillian, for appellant (case no. A01A2451).
Gregory, Christy & Maniklal, Hardy Gregory, Jr., Preyesh K. Maniklal, William S. Stone, Kevin R. Dean, for appellees.
Bovis, Kyle & Burch, James E. Singer, Love, Willingham, Peters, Gilleland & Monyak, Allen S. Willingham, Michael T. Carithers, Scott M. Patterson, Mabry & McClelland, Walter B. McClelland, amici curiae.