O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-24-10 (2019)

Grounds for disapproval of forms

✓ 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

The Commissioner shall disapprove any form filed under Code Section 33-24-9 or withdraw any previous approval of such form only: (1) If it is in any respect in violation of or does not comply with this title; (2) If it contains or incorporates by reference any inconsistent, ambiguous, or misleading clauses or exceptions and conditions which deceptively affect the risk purported to be assumed in the general coverage of the contract; (3) If it has any title, heading, or other indication of its provisions which is misleading; (4) If it is printed or otherwise reproduced in such manner as to render any provision of the form substantially illegible or not easily legible to persons of normal vision; (5) If it contains provisions which are unfair or inequitable or contrary to the public policy of this state or would, because the provisions are unclear or deceptively worded, encourage misrepresentation; or (6) If the benefits provided in any medicare supplement insurance policy described in Code Section 33-24-29 are unreasonable in relation to the premium charged.

History

Code 1933, § 56-2411, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, § 1; Ga. L. 1980, p. 1266, § 3; Ga. L. 2019, p. 386, § 26/SB 133. The 2019 amendment, effective July 1, 2019, substituted ‘‘described’’ for ‘‘defined’’ in the middle of paragraph (6).

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 1980, p. 1266, § 5, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to paragraph (6) shall be applicable to ‘‘any medicare supplement policy delivered or issued for delivery’’ in Georgia ‘‘on or after November 1, 1980.’’

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Sollek v. Laseter, 126 Ga. App. 137, 190 S.E.2d 148 (1972); Strickland v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 240 Ga. 723, 242 S.E.2d 148 (1978); Whitehead v. Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 543 F. Supp. 967 (N.D. Ga.

1982); Universal Scientific, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 174 Ga. App. 768, 331 S.E.2d 611 (1985); Penn Am. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 228 Ga. App. 659, 492 S.E.2d 571 (1997).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, §§ 19 et seq., 31. C.J.S. - 44 C.J.S., Insurance, §§ 479, 480. ALR. - Right of insured or beneficiary to enforce a policy provision more favorable to him than the standard policy; or to have policy reformed so as to include such a provision, 113 A.L.R. 773.

Validity, construction, and effect of approval or disapproval by Insurance Commissioner (or similar official) of policy, 119 A.L.R. 877. Validity and construction of statutes relating to style or prominence with which provisions must be printed in insurance policy, 36 A.L.R.3d 464.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1997–1997 · leading case: Penn Am. Ins. v. Miller, 492 S.E.2d 571 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Penn Am. Ins. v. Miller, 492 S.E.2d 571 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Under OCGA § 33-24-10, the grounds upon which the Commissioner may invalidate a policy provision are limited to instances in which the policy provisions are inconsistent, misleading, illegible, unfair, or contrary to public policy.”

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.