O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-23-40 (2019)

Contracts issued by unauthorized persons not rendered unenforceable

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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

Any contract of insurance issued by a person prohibited by this chapter from so issuing it shall not be rendered unenforceable by reason of the violation of this chapter, but all persons knowingly participating in the violation shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 of this title.

History

Code 1981, § 33-23-40, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2830, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 878, § 11; Ga. L. 2001, p. 925, § 1; Ga. L. 2019, p. 386, § 17/SB 133. The 2019 amendment, effective July

1, 2019, revised punctuation in the middle, and substituted ‘‘subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 of this title’’ for ‘‘guilty of a misdemeanor’’ at the end.

Annotations

The 2019 amendment, effective July 1, 2019, revised punctuation in the middle, and substituted "subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 of this title" for "guilty of a misdemeanor" at the end.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1987–1995 · leading case: Unified Servs., Inc. v. Home Ins., 460 S.E.2d 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Unified Servs., Inc. v. Home Ins., 460 S.E.2d 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “In any case, OCGA § 33-23-1 (a) (3) (formerly OCGA § 33-23-40 (a) (3)) *88 provides that anyone who receives money for transmission to the insurer for a contract of insurance is an agent, “anything in the application or contract .”
Karp v. W. Life Ins., 356 S.E.2d 893 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Appellant contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to appellee because genuine issues of fact remained regarding whether Simmons was appellee’s agent and thus, whether appellee, by means of Simmons’ representations to appellant and the decedent, was bound to…”
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.