O.C.G.A. § 33-23-1.1 (2019)
Counselor’s additional ancillary services considered a separate transaction
As used in paragraph (6) of subsection (a) of Code Section 33-23-1, the definition of counselor, the term ‘‘transaction’’ refers to coverage or services in the same line or subline of insurance; provided, however, that additional ancillary services for commercial risks in excess of acquisition services shall be considered a separate transaction when such additional ancillary services are disclosed in writing to the insured and approved in advance by the insured. Additional ancillary services shall include, but not be limited to, the following: risk identification; loss measurement; gathering and analysis of loss information; verifica16 tion of workers’ compensation experience modifiers; setting of risk retention levels; development of retention financing plans; development of insurance specifications; negotiation with insurers regarding coverages, costs, and payment options; implementation of retained and transferred risk programs; monitoring of annual program; and insurance audit services.
History
Code 1981, § 33-23-1.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 778, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 925, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Substantive due process claim failed. - Bidding insurer’s summary judgment motion was properly granted as to the insurer’s substantive due process claim against a county as the county’s decision to throw out the entire bidding process was rational in light of the taint caused by a consultant’s lack of a counselor’s license under O.C.G.A. §§ 33-23-1.1 and 33-23-4. Benefit Support, Inc. v. Hall County, 281 Ga. App. 825, 637 S.E.2d 763 (2006), cert. denied, No. S07C0306, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 214 (Ga. 2007). Effect of lack of consultant’s license. - Bidding insurer’s summary judgment motion was properly granted as to the insurer’s equal protection claim against a county as the county did not exercise arbitrary power but acted rationally and reasonably in rejecting all bids across the board after it was discovered that a consultant lacked a counselor’s license under O.C.G.A. §§ 33-23-1.1 and 33-23-4; because of the taint to the process, all bids were rejected, no classification was created at all, and all similarly situated persons were treated alike. Ben-
efit Support, Inc. v. Hall County, 281 Ga. App. 825, 637 S.E.2d 763 (2006), cert. denied, No. S07C0306, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 214 (Ga. 2007). Damages under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6. - Summary judgment was properly entered for a consultant and a consulting firm on a bidding insurer’s claim under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 after all of the bids for a county contract were rejected because the consultant lacked a license under O.C.G.A. §§ 33-23-1.1 and 33-23-4 as the statutes requiring insurance counselors to be licensed and mandating that licensed individuals meet certain qualifications were designed to protect the insurance counselor’s clients and not to protect or benefit providers of insurance; the generic statement that O.C.G.A. § 33-23-5(a) was ‘‘for the protection of the people of (Georgia)’’ did not expand the intent of the statute requiring licensure for counselors to benefit businesses that provided insurance. Benefit Support, Inc. v. Hall County, 281 Ga. App. 825, 637 S.E.2d 763 (2006), cert. denied, No. S07C0306, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 214 (Ga. 2007).