Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 33-24-9 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 33-24-9 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 33-24-9

TITLE 33 INSURANCE

Section 24. Insurance Generally, 33-24-1 through 33-24-98.

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

33-24-9. Approval or disapproval of forms.

  1. No basic insurance policy or annuity contract form or application form where written application is required and is to be made a part of the policy or contract or printed rider or endorsement form or form of renewal certificate shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state unless the form has been filed with and approved by the Commissioner. This subsection shall not apply to surety bonds or to specially rated inland marine risks nor to policies, riders, endorsements, or forms of unique character designed for and used with relation to insurance upon a particular subject or which related to the manner of distribution of benefits or to the reservation of rights and benefits under life or accident and sickness insurance policies and are used at the request of the individual policyholder, contract holder, or certificate holder.
  2. Every filing shall be made not less than 90 days in advance of any delivery. At the expiration of 90 days the form filed shall be deemed approved unless prior thereto it has been approved or disapproved by the Commissioner. Approval of any form by the Commissioner shall constitute a waiver of any unexpired portion of the waiting period. The Commissioner may extend by not more than an additional 90 days the period within which he may approve or disapprove any form by giving notice of the extension before expiration of the initial 90 day period. At the expiration of the period as so extended and in the absence of prior approval or disapproval, any form shall be deemed approved. The Commissioner may at any time, after notice and for cause shown, withdraw any approval after notice and hearing as provided in Code Sections 33-2-17 through 33-2-23 and 33-2-26 through 33-2-28.
  3. Any order of the Commissioner disapproving any form or withdrawing a previous approval shall state in reasonable detail the grounds for that action.
  4. The Commissioner may by order, in exceptional cases, exempt from the requirements of this Code section for so long as he deems proper any insurance document or form or type of insurance document or form as specified in the order to which, in his discretion, this Code section may not practicably be applied or the filing and approval of which are, in his discretion, not desirable or necessary for the protection of the public.
  5. This Code section shall apply also to any form used by domestic insurers for delivery in a jurisdiction outside this state, if the insurance supervisory official of that jurisdiction informs the Commissioner that the form is not subject to approval or disapproval by the official and upon the Commissioner's order requiring the form to be submitted to him for approval or disapproval. The standards applicable to forms for domestic use shall apply to such forms.
  6. Each filing made pursuant to this Code section shall be accompanied by a fee or fees as provided in Code Section 33-8-1.

(Code 1933, § 56-2410, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, § 1; Ga. L. 1973, p. 499, § 5; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2725, § 27.)

Law reviews.

- For article, "The Chevron Two-Step in Georgia's Administrative Law," see 46 Ga. L. Rev. 871 (2012).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Insurance providing coverage for aerial pesticide contractors is of a unique character and is thereby expressly covered by the exclusionary language of subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 33-24-9. Kelly v. Lloyd's of London, 255 Ga. 291, 336 S.E.2d 772 (1985).

Assault and battery exclusions.

- Failure of an insurer to file and obtain administrative approval of an assault and battery exclusion in a liability insurance policy did not render the exclusion void and unenforceable. Penn Am. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 228 Ga. App. 659, 492 S.E.2d 571 (1997).

Cited in Sollek v. Laseter, 126 Ga. App. 137, 190 S.E.2d 148 (1972); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bates, 542 F. Supp. 807 (N.D. Ga. 1982); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Page, 188 Ga. App. 876, 374 S.E.2d 768 (1988).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Group coverage of domestic partnerships violative of public policy.

- Municipal ordinances which create the status of domestic partnership are violative of constitutional and statutory provisions precluding municipal legislation relating to legal status and relationship; thus, group health insurance coverage provided pursuant to such ordinances is violative of the public policy of this state. 1993 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 93-26.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, § 24.

C.J.S.

- 44 C.J.S., Insurance, 478 et seq.

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.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 33-24-9

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Clark v. Sec. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 509 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 29 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 26, 1998 | 270 Ga. 165

...orgery and by pressing its rescission claim long after learning that Fipps forged the application. 3. The third question posed on certiorari concerns whether an insurer's failure to file a policy with the insurance commissioner as required by OCGA §§ 33-24-9 and 33-1-7 can serve as a basis for liability under RICO....
Copy

Kelly v. Lloyd's of London, 336 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. 1985).

Cited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 27, 1985 | 255 Ga. 291

...We will state and address each certified question separately. First Certified Question "(1)-(a) Whether the policy form used by Lloyd's to issue a policy of aircraft and aerial application insurance to R & B Helicopters is excepted from the filing requirement of OCGA § 33-24-9 (a)? "(b) If not, does Lloyd's failure to file the form in accordance with the statute preclude equitable relief because of the `unclean hands' doctrine or void the exclusionary provision thereby making it unenforceable?" We hold that Lloyds' aircraft and aerial application insurance policy is excepted from the filing requirement of OCGA § 33-24-9 (a)....
...or approximately one hundred aerial pesticide contractors. These statistics militate toward the conclusion that a policy providing such insurance coverage is of a unique character and is thereby expressly covered by the exclusionary language of OCGA § 33-24-9 (a)....
...334, 337 (2) (254 SE2d 571) (1979). Mr. Ralph W. Terry, Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner for the State of Georgia, expressly stated in an affidavit that Lloyd's is not required to file this particular policy with the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to OCGA § 33-24-9 (a). He added that none of the other insurance companies issuing policies for aerial pesticide contractors had forms on file with the insurance commissioner's office. Since we find that Lloyd's was not required to file the policy under OCGA § 33-24-9 (a), it is not necessary to answer subsection (b) of the First Certified Question....