O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-24-52 (2019)

Direct response insurance business

✓ 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) For the purposes of this Code section, ‘‘direct response insurance business’’ means the solicitation, delivery, and servicing of group or individual life or accident and sickness insurance policies in this state, other than franchise insurance policies or other policies sold through a third party, travel life or accident insurance policies, or life or accident and sickness insurance policies sold or issued in connection with an extension of credit, under a general mode of business in which there is no face-to-face contact between the insured and an agent or other representative of the insurer.

(b) Any foreign or alien insurer who conducts a direct response insurance business in this state shall:

(1) Maintain a registered agent for service of process who is a resident of this state; and

(2) Maintain an office within this state, accept collect telephone calls from its direct response insurance policyholders, or provide toll free telephone service to such policyholders in order to provide information and assistance to such policyholders and their beneficiaries.

(c) Any insurer providing collect or toll free telephone service pursuant to this Code section shall notify its direct response insurance policyholders in writing of the applicable telephone number or numbers and of any subsequent changes in the telephone number or numbers within 90 days of such change.

History

Code 1981, § 33-24-52, enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 1054, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2017–2017 · leading case: W.A. Griffin v. Coca-Cola Enter., Inc., 686 F. App'x 820 (11th Cir. 2017).
W.A. Griffin v. Coca-Cola Enter., Inc., 686 F. App'x 820 (11th Cir. 2017). “Griffin argues that the district court erred by concluding that she failed to demonstrate statutory standing to file an ERISA claim based upon an unambiguous anti-assignment provision in the plan because CCE waived its right to rely upon the provision and the provision is…”
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.