O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-31-11 (2019)

Right of debtor to furnish insurance

✓ 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

When credit life insurance or credit accident and sickness insurance is required as additional security for any indebtedness, the debtor, upon written request to the creditor, shall have the option of furnishing the required amount of insurance through existing policies of insurance owned or controlled by him or of procuring and furnishing the required coverage through any insurer authorized to transact an insurance business within this state.

History

Code 1933, § 56-3311, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Effect of payment with insurance proceeds. - Since this section gives the debtor the option of procuring the debtor’s own insurance coverage, the effect of payment with the proceeds of insurance

should be the same regardless of which of the authorized methods of insurance the debtor chooses to employ. Betts v. Brown, 219 Ga. 782, 136 S.E.2d 365 (1964).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1985–1989 · leading case: Robinson v. Volunteer State Life Ins., 333 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robinson v. Volunteer State Life Ins., 333 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 33-31-11. It is therefore clear that, whoever technically “furnishes” the credit insurance or pays the premium, it is by statute in *294 tended for the benefit of the debtor as well as for the creditor.”

Credithrift of Am., Inc. v. Whitley, 380 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Even if the statement meant appellees had to purchase appellants’ credit insurance, such a statement, though unfair, was not shown to be a misrepresentation of the truth to constitute fraud, and although, as violative of OCGA § 33-31-11, it might constitute an unfair business…”

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.