O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
This title shall be known and may be cited as the ‘‘Georgia Insurance Code.’’ § 1, provided that the Georgia Insurance Code would become effective on January 1, 1961, except as otherwise expressly provided.
History
Code 1933, § 56-101, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, § 1; Ga. L. 1965, p. 371, § 2.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. - Former Code 1933, § 56-115, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289,
JUDICIAL DECISIONS App. 577, 306 S.E.2d 924 (1983) (on motion for rehearing). Cited in Federated Mut. Implement & Hdwe. Ins. Co. v. Barker, 123 Ga. App. 259, 180 S.E.2d 559 (1971).
Section 7-1011(1), DeKalb County Code, a business license ordinance, is repealed by implication by the Georgia Insurance Code. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeKalb County, 167 Ga.
RESEARCH REFERENCES Waiver or estoppel of insurer on basis of statements or omissions in promotional, illustrative, or explanatory materials given to insured, 63 A.L.R.5th 427.
Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. - 14A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Insurance, § 2. ALR. - Liability of insurance agent or broker on ground of inadequacy of liability-insurance coverage procured, 60 A.L.R.5th 165.
Notes of Decisions
Gulf States Underwriters of Louisiana, Inc. v. Bennett, 580 S.E.2d 550 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “[9] Although Bennett suggests that the ALJ found, as a matter of fact, that Thomas was an insurer, this suggestion is not supported by the record. Blevins' testimony makes clear that Thomas is an insurance agent, and the ALJ acknowledged as much in the award.”
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. DeKalb Cnty., 306 S.E.2d 924 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Subsequent to the writing of this opinion, it has come to our attention that the Supreme Court has declared that the subject business license ordinance was repealed by implication by the Georgia Insurance Code (OCGA § 33-1-1 (Code Ann.”
Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dekalb Cnty., 341 S.E.2d 3 (Ga. 1986).
· cites it 2× “289 (OCGA § 33-1-1 et seq.) which, among much else, levied a statewide two and a quarter percent premium on all casualty insurance companies doing business in Georgia, was inconsistent with and contrary to the 1959 enabling statute for the DeKalb County tax and therefore…”
Seals v. Hygrade Distrib. & Delivery Sys., Inc., 549 S.E.2d 412 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “By that time, Ralph Seals was no longer authorized to drive the trucks; thus, he no longer needed partnership insurance. The broker involved when Seals enrolled in the program was the National Association of Independent Truckers.”
Hoffman v. Oxendine, 601 S.E.2d 813 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “…Hoffman’s ORA request. Judgment reversed. Smith, C. J., and Johnson, P. J., concur. 1 OCGA§ 50-18-70 et seq. 2 OCGA § 33-1-1 et seq.”
Golf Mktg., Inc. v. Atlanta Classic Cars, Inc., 538 S.E.2d 809 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “The contract is referred to as a “policy”; the payment for the contract is referred to as a “premium”; the indemnification is referred to as “coverage”; and a request for payment under the policy is referred to as a “claim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.