Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1969, p. 561, § 12; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1345, § 2; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 33; Ga. L. 1986, p. 496, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1047, § 4; Ga. L. 2002, p. 1192, § 7; Ga. L. 2014, p. 829, § 2/HB 645.)
The 2014 amendment, effective July 1, 2014, inserted "delivered as provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 33-24-14 or" near the middle of the last sentence of paragraph (c)(1).
Language of this section must be strictly construed. Freeman v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 151 Ga. App. 161, 259 S.E.2d 165 (1979); Brooks Brown Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Harden, 236 Ga. App. 781, 513 S.E.2d 755 (1999).
When a premium finance company seeks to cancel an insurance contract pursuant to authorization of a power of attorney contained in an agreement with its insured, it must do so in strict compliance with this section. Clark v. Superior Ins. Co., 209 Ga. App. 290, 433 S.E.2d 394 (1993).
Terms of section must be exactly followed. Garber v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 131 Ga. App. 366, 206 S.E.2d 86 (1974).
- The notice required by this section applies to all subsections of the statute; it is necessary first to notify the insured of the intent to cancel and then of the election to cancel the policy. Georgia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gardner, 205 Ga. App. 458, 422 S.E.2d 324 (1992).
Premium finance company's notice to an insured, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-22-13(b), that the policy would be cancelled for nonpayment of premiums was effective because the check the insured sent to pay the premium had been returned for insufficient funds. Kolencik v. Stratford Ins. Co., F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Nov. 28, 2005).
Any ambiguities of notice must be resolved in favor of insured. Freeman v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 151 Ga. App. 161, 259 S.E.2d 165 (1979).
- A receipt bearing the name and policy number - but not the address - of an insured to whom notice of cancellation is sent does not constitute a form of proof of mailing within the meaning of subsection (c) regardless of whether it is acceptable to the United States Postal Service. Moore v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 264 Ga. 808, 450 S.E.2d 198 (1994).
The company has the burden of proving strict compliance with this section. Freeman v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 151 Ga. App. 161, 259 S.E.2d 165 (1979); Brooks Brown Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Harden, 236 Ga. App. 781, 513 S.E.2d 755 (1999).
- There is nothing in subsection (c) requiring proof of the accuracy of the receipt, and defendant complied with that provision by providing the receipt which it obtained in connection with the mailing; in other words, no hearsay was involved in the matter to be proven by defendant, that the bulk mailing document was the receipt received from the post office in connection with the mailing to plaintiff, and the required evidence was provided by the statements in the affidavit of defendant's president which also authenticated the bulk mailing document so as to permit its consideration by the superior court. Oriental Farmers Food Corp. v. Agency Servs., Inc., 237 Ga. App. 75, 514 S.E.2d 80 (1999).
- This Code section allows a premium finance company to terminate coverage under an insurance policy notwithstanding the existence of a mortgagee. Subsection (d) merely requires that the insurer provide separate notice of cancellation to the mortgagee and set the effective date of cancellation of the mortgagee's coverage. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. v. Photographic Assistance Corp., 732 F. Supp. 1572 (N.D. Ga. 1990).
Limited power of attorney given by insured to an insurance premium finance company authorizing the company to cancel policies and perform certain other duties relating thereto did not create a fiduciary relationship between the insured and the company. Gill Plumbing Co. v. Imperial Premium Fin., Inc., 213 Ga. App. 754, 445 S.E.2d 840 (1994).
Cited in Cochran v. Paco, Inc., 409 F. Supp. 219 (N.D. Ga. 1975); Leader Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Gaydon, 185 Ga. App. 322, 363 S.E.2d 859 (1987).
- 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, §§ 95, 907.
- 45 C.J.S., Insurance, § 775 et seq.
- Remedies and measure of damages for wrongful cancellation of life, health, and accident insurance, 34 A.L.R.3d 245.
Remedies and measure of damages for wrongful cancellation of liability and property insurance, 34 A.L.R.3d 385.
Total Results: 3
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-03-15
Citation: 694 S.E.2d 337, 287 Ga. 86
Snippet: the provisions of subsection (d) of Code Section 33-22-13 pertaining to notice to a governmental agency
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2003-11-17
Citation: 277 Ga. 396, 589 S.E.2d 96, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 3388, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 1008
Snippet: (1994) (construing similar language in OCGA § 33-22-13 (c)). Id. (insurer showed mailing to last known
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-11-07
Citation: 264 Ga. 808, 450 S.E.2d 198, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 876
Snippet: to cancel, OCGA § 33-22-13 (b), followed by a notice of cancellation. OCGA § 33-22-13 (c). At the time