Court Opinion

ID: 9575021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:10:44.364624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:48.801907
License: Public Domain

Felton, C. J.,
dissenting. I think that the charge treated in division 2 of the majority opinion was erroneous. In the absence of a statutory prohibition, such a contract of insurance as in this *131case is lawful if no reason appears why it is contrary to public policy. 29 Am. Jur. 184, § 166, note 7; Liberty National Life Ins. Co. v. Parrimore, 68 Ga. App. 623. The subject matter of the charge was foreign to any issue in the case and was misleading and confusing. Under such a policy the appearance of the insured is immaterial, and such a policy cannot be said in any and every event to insure against a malady or disease which existed in an incipient form prior to the issuance of the policy, when there are no manifest symptoms or reasonable apprehension of impairment of the system. This type of policy, issued for small amounts and for small premiums, may be most advantageous for those who could not secure ordinary policies either because of physical or financial conditions. The effect of such a charge, if applied, is to change the terms of the contract. Gardner, P. J., concurs in this dissent.