The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Duckett v. PIEDMONT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Court of Appeals of Georgia

Duckett v. PIEDMONT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

43524·Judge: Bell, Hall, Quillian·Attorney: Frank R. Lea, for appellant., Wiggins & Smith, Walter A. Smith, M. T. Simmons, Jr., for appellee.5 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 118 Ga. App. 3 (1968) 162 S.E.2d 531 DUCKETT v. PIEDMONT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURA...
  • DUCKETT v. PIEDMONT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
  • Court of Appeals of Georgia.
  • Affirmed. Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • 118 Ga. App. 3 (1968) 162 S.E.2d 531 DUCKETT v. PIEDMONT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURA...
  • DUCKETT v. PIEDMONT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
  • Court of Appeals of Georgia.
  • Affirmed. Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

118 Ga. App. 3 (1968)
162 S.E.2d 531

DUCKETT
v.
PIEDMONT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

43524.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Argued March 5, 1968.
Decided June 12, 1968.

Frank R. Lea, for appellant.

Wiggins & Smith, Walter A. Smith, M. T. Simmons, Jr., for appellee.

BELL, Presiding Judge.

Appellant sued under an employee group insurance contract for reimbursement of certain medical expenses incurred in the treatment of injuries received in an automobile accident. The suit seeks recovery of expenses for part of the medical treatment which, although compelled by the severity of appellant's injuries, was not administered to her within the time limitations provided in the policy. The policy provides for payment for treatment for accidental bodily injuries "for which covered expenses are incurred after the effective date of insurance and while insured under the policy. The charge for a service shall be deemed to have been incurred on the day the service is performed." Held:

*4 The policy of the Supreme Court is to enforce strictly an insurance contract in accordance with the meaning of its unambiguous terms, even in those instances where the court's sympathy may avowedly rest with an unfortunate claimant precluded recovery by that strictness of policy. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sewell, 223 Ga. 31 (153 SE2d 432). This court, also, must confine itself to the truth that insurance is a matter of contract — not sympathy. Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 97 Ga. App. 529 (103 SE2d 651). It appearing from the stipulations of the parties that the expenses claimed were incurred for treatments administered after the expiration of unambiguous time limitations stated in the policy, the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant is

Affirmed. Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap