Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 10-13-1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 10 COMMERCE AND TRADE

Section 13. Tobacco Product Manufacturers, 10-13-1 through 10-13-4.

ARTICLE 2 INVEST GEORGIA FUND

10-13-1. Legislative findings; Master Settlement Agreement.

  1. Cigarette smoking presents serious public health concerns to the state and to the citizens of the state. The Surgeon General has determined that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, and other serious diseases, and that there are hundreds of thousands of tobacco-related deaths in the United States each year. These diseases most often do not appear until many years after the person in question begins smoking.
  2. Cigarette smoking also presents serious financial concerns for the state. Under certain health-care programs, the state may have a legal obligation to provide medical assistance to eligible persons for health conditions associated with cigarette smoking, and those persons may have a legal entitlement to receive such medical assistance.
  3. Under these programs, the state pays millions of dollars each year to provide medical assistance for these persons for health conditions associated with cigarette smoking.
  4. It is the policy of the state that financial burdens imposed on the state by cigarette smoking be borne by tobacco product manufacturers rather than by the state to the extent that such manufacturers either determine to enter into a settlement with the state or are found culpable by the courts.
  5. On November 23, 1998, leading United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into a settlement agreement, entitled the "Master Settlement Agreement," with the state. The Master Settlement Agreement obligates these manufacturers, in return for a release of past, present, and certain future claims against them as described therein, to pay substantial sums to the state (tied in part to their volume of sales); to fund a national foundation devoted to the interests of public health; and to make substantial changes in their advertising and marketing practices and corporate culture, with the intention of reducing underage smoking.
  6. It would be contrary to the policy of the state if tobacco product manufacturers who determine not to enter into such a settlement could use a resulting cost advantage to derive large, short-term profits in the years before liability may arise without ensuring that the state will have an eventual source of recovery from them if they are proven to have acted culpably. It is thus in the interest of the state to require that such manufacturers establish a reserve fund to guarantee a source of compensation and to prevent such manufacturers from deriving large, short-term profits and then becoming judgment-proof before liability may arise.

(Code 1981, §10-13-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1999, p. 725, § 1.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Misinterpretation of Attorney General's power under O.C.G.A.

§ 10-13A-4(b). - Trial court committed an error of law by affirming a decision of the Georgia Attorney General (AG) that a cigarette manufacturer was not a tobacco product manufacturer under the Georgia Qualifying Statute, O.C.G.A. § 10-13-2(9), and, therefore, could not sell cigarettes under its brand name in Georgia since the AG's decision was based in part on a misinterpretation of O.C.G.A. § 10-13A-4(b) and the AG's retention of the ability to have the manufacturer cure any certification deficiencies. Carolina Tobacco Co. v. Baker, 295 Ga. App. 115, 670 S.E.2d 811 (2008).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Validity, construction, application, and effect of master settlement agreement (MSA) between tobacco companies and various states, and state statutes implementing agreement; use and distribution of MSA proceeds, 25 A.L.R.6th 435.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 10-13-1 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 3

Suntrust Bank v. Venable

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-09-12

Citation: 299 Ga. 655, 791 S.E.2d 5, 90 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 957, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 588

Snippet: reject SunTrust’s invitation to hold that OCGA § 10-1-31 (a) (9)’s definition of a “retail installment contract”

Harris v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-11-23

Citation: 686 S.E.2d 777, 286 Ga. 245, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3663, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 735

Snippet: All with emphasis supplied, see, e.g., OCGA §§ 10-1-31 (a) (4) (as used in article on sales financing

Southern Guaranty Corp. v. Doyle

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1987-03-12

Citation: 353 S.E.2d 510, 256 Ga. 790, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 657

Snippet: definition of "motor vehicle" appearing at OCGA § 10-1-31 (a) (4). E.g., Holder v. Brock, 129 Ga. App. 732