O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-22-6 (2019)

Grounds and procedure for revocation, suspension, or nonrenewal of license or imposition of probation or fine

✓ 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) The Commissioner may revoke or suspend the license of any premium finance company when and if after investigation the Commissioner finds that:

(1) Any license issued to the company was obtained by fraud;

(2) There was any misrepresentation in the application for the license;

(3) The holder of the license has otherwise shown himself untrustworthy or incompetent to act as a premium finance company;

(4) The holder of such license has misappropriated, converted, illegally withheld, or refused to pay over upon proper demand any moneys belonging to an insurer or insured entrusted to the holder in its fiduciary capacity;

(5) The holder is found to be in an unsound condition or in such condition as to render the future transaction of business in this state hazardous to the public; or

(6) The company has violated any of the provisions of this chapter.

(b) Before the Commissioner shall revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew the license of any premium finance company, he shall give to the person an opportunity to be fully heard and to introduce evidence in his behalf.

(c) In lieu of revoking or suspending the license for any of the causes enumerated in subsection (a) of this Code section, the Commissioner shall have the authority after a hearing to place the premium finance company on probation for a period of time not to exceed one year and may subject such company to a penalty of not more than $1,000.00 for each offense when, in his judgment, he finds that the public interest would not be harmed by the continued operation of the company.

(d) The Commissioner shall also have the authority after a hearing to subject any person or entity who is acting as a premium finance company in this state without a license, as provided for by this chapter, to a penalty of not more than $1,000.00 for each violation of this chapter. The amount of any such penalty shall be paid by the company, person, or entity to the Commissioner for the use of the state.

(e) At any hearing provided by this Code section, the Commissioner or his designee shall have authority to administer oaths to witnesses. After having been administered the oath, anyone testifying falsely commits the offense of perjury.

(f ) Any hearings provided for in this Code section shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 2 of this title. Any action of the Commissioner in refusing to issue or renew a license or in assessing a monetary fine shall be subject to review as provided in Chapter 2 of this title.

History

Ga. L. 1969, p. 561, § 6; Ga. L. 1975, p. 1234, § 3; Ga. L. 1980, p. 505, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 33.

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant

to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2000, ‘‘Code section’’ was substituted for ‘‘subsection’’ in the first sentence of subsection (f ).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Cochran v. Paco, Inc., 409 F. Supp. 219 (N.D. Ga. 1975). RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, §§ 42, 43. C.J.S. - 44 C.J.S., Insurance, § 154 et seq. 45 C.J.S., Insurance, §§ 811, 817, 835. ALR. - Hearsay in proceeding for sus-

pension or revocation of license to conduct business or profession, 142 A.L.R. 1388. Practices forbidden by state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection acts, 89 A.L.R.3d 449.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1999–1999 · leading case: Paulsen Street Investors v. EBCO Gen. Agencies, 514 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Paulsen Street Investors v. EBCO Gen. Agencies, 514 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 33-22-6 (a) (3)-(6). We conclude that the required license is regulatory in nature, and that the failure of APF to obtain a license in its own name forecloses any claim it had against appellees under OCGA § 33-22-14 for the return of unearned premiums.”
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.