O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-14-20 (2019)

Limitation on commission received by persons selling stock of insurers; participation by corporate officers in commissions

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No officer, agent, or other person selling or negotiating stock in any domestic insurance company shall receive either directly or indirectly more than 10 percent of the sales price of any of said stock. No president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, or director or any other executive officer of any insurance company shall participate in the commission received by any person selling or negotiating the sale of any stock of any insurance company either directly or indirectly.

(b) No salaried officer of any insurance company shall participate in the commissions deriving from the sale of life insurance policies or agency contracts of the companies.

History

Ga. L. 1912, p. 119, § 19; Code 1933, § 56-522; Code 1933,

§ 56-1542, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section is inapplicable to sales not for company itself. - This section has no application where one who happens to be an officer or agent of an insurance company sells stock belonging to himself or to some person, firm, or corporation to whom the company had previously sold stock; the section refers to sales in which the officers or agents are dealing either

directly or indirectly for the insurance company itself. Prontaut v. Lorick & Co., 17 Ga. App. 495, 87 S.E. 716 (1916). Agent with exclusive sales contract may be awarded commission on stock not offered the agent. - If the company breached an exclusive sales contract and allowed others to sell, this would not prevent the agent having an exclusive sales

contract from insisting on ten percent under the terms of the contract. The ten percent, as to stock which should have been offered to such a salesman to sell but was not, is not an ‘‘additional compensa-

tion’’ of the ten percent received on stocks actually sold by such salesman, but is the measure of damages for the breach of the contract. Piedmont Life Ins. Co. v. Bell, 109 Ga. App. 251, 135 S.E.2d 916 (1964).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, § 159. C.J.S. - 44 C.J.S., Insurance, § 3115.