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

O.C.G.A. § 33-32-5 (2019)

Amount of insurance in certain fire policies deemed conclusive as to value of property covered

✓ 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) Whenever any policy of insurance is issued to a natural person or persons or to any legal entity wholly owned by a natural person or persons insuring a specifically described one or two family residential building or structure located in this state against loss by fire and the building or structure is wholly destroyed by fire without fraudulent or criminal fault on the part of the insured or one acting in his or her behalf, the amount of insurance set forth in the policy relative to the building or structure shall be taken conclusively to be the value of the

property, except to the extent of any depreciation in value occurring between the date of the policy or its renewal and the loss, provided that, if loss occurs within 30 days of the original effective date of the policy, the insured shall be entitled to the actual loss sustained not exceeding the sum insured. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed as prohibiting the use of coinsurance or as preventing the insurer from repairing or replacing damaged property at its own expense without contribution on the part of the insured. (b) Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not apply where: (1) The building or structure is not wholly destroyed by fire; (2) Insurance policies are issued or renewed by more than one company insuring the same building or structure against fire and the existence of the additional insurance is not disclosed by the insured to all insurers issuing policies; (3) Two or more buildings or structures are insured under a blanket form for a single amount of insurance; or (4) The completed value of a building or structure is insured under a builders’ risk policy.

History

Code 1933, § 56-3206, enacted by Ga. L. 1971, p. 657, § 1; Ga. L. 2016, p. 237, § 1/SB 137.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey

article discussing developments in insurance law, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 313 (1999). For annual survey article on evidence law, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 303 (2000).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Insured not limited to attempted sale price before fire. - Although insured attempted to sell the property before the fire, insured was not limited to that sale price as the amount of the insurable interest, but could recover the entire policy amount. Forbus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 603 F. Supp. 113 (N.D. Ga. 1984). Rider guaranteeing replacement cost coverage. - O.C.G.A. § 33-32-5 did not apply to an insurance rider providing for payment of the full replacement cost of destroyed property and requiring replacement or repair as a condition precedent. Marchman v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 232 Ga. App. 481, 500 S.E.2d 659 (1998). Home not wholly destroyed. - Trial court properly determined that the insureds were not entitled to the maximum amount of coverage set forth in the insureds’ homeowner’s policy under O.C.G.A. § 33-32-5, because the umpire determined that the insureds’ home was

not wholly destroyed during the fire. Bell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 319 Ga. App. 302, 734 S.E.2d 894 (2012). ‘‘Builders’ risk’’ policies. - Policy containing provisions indicating that the insured dwelling was under construction was a ‘‘builders’ risk’’ policy and, therefore, when the dwelling burned before completion, subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 33-32-6 did not override the provision for payment of the amount necessary to rebuild the structure, not the full amount of the policy. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garzone, 240 Ga. App. 304, 523 S.E.2d 386 (1999). Cited in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baugh, 173 Ga. App. 615, 327 S.E.2d 576 (1985); Southern Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Ray, 188 Ga. App. 469, 373 S.E.2d 236 (1988); Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 192 Ga. App. 504, 385 S.E.2d 87 (1989); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.

Wiley, 220 Ga. App. 442, 469 S.E.2d 302 (1996). RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Divisibility of fire insurance policy covering building and contents, 47 A.L.R. 650. Act of insured while mentally incompetent in causing loss otherwise within coverage of property or liability insurance policy as defense or ground of setoff or counterclaim, 110 A.L.R. 1060. Divisibility of fire insurance policy as regards subjects of insurance as affected by the fact that premium is payable at a named rate per one hundred dollars of insurance, 129 A.L.R. 651.

Applicability of ‘‘increase of hazard’’ clause in fire insurance policy to conditions occurring accidentally, 34 A.L.R.2d 717. Test or criterion of ‘‘actual cash value’’ under insurance policy insuring to extent of actual cash value at time of loss, 61 A.L.R.2d 711. Insurer’s liability as affected by refusal of public authorities to permit reconstruction or repair after fire, 90 A.L.R.2d 790.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2021 · leading case: Marchman v. Grange Mut. Ins., 500 S.E.2d 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marchman v. Grange Mut. Ins., 500 S.E.2d 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “In his sole enumeration of error, Marchman asserts that the trial court misconstrued OCGA § 33-32-5 (a), Georgia’s Valued Policy Statute, and failed to apply its provisions to supersede the express terms of the insurance rider.”
Bell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins., 734 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “The Bells contend that the trial court erred in not finding that, pursuant to OCGA § 33-32-5, they were entitled to the maximum amount of coverage set forth in their policy because their home was wholly destroyed.”
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Franks, 739 S.E.2d 427 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “GFB contends that Franks’ reliance on Georgia’s Valued Policy Statute, OCGA § 33-32-5, 15 is misplaced. Generally, the gravamen of Valued Policy Statutes is that, in defined circumstances, the amount of a property insurance policy is conclusive as to the value of the subject…”
Allstate Ins. v. Baugh, 327 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Based on this statute, the trial court charged: “[W]henever any policy of insurance shall be issued to a natural person or persons insuring a specifically described one or two-family residential building or structure located in this state against loss by fire, and said…”
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Garzone, 523 S.E.2d 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 16× “Concluding that OCGA § 33-32-5 required Georgia Farm to pay the higher amount, the court entered judgment in favor of Garzone for the full amount of the policy but denied his claim for bad faith.”
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Croft, 746 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “131, 139 (3) ( 739 SE2d 427 ) (2013) (physical precedent only) (where insurer had not shown that the value of the dwelling on the date of loss triggered application of Georgia’s Valued Policy Statute, OCGA § 33-32-5, the insurer’s argument regarding application of the statute…”
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. v. Wiley, 469 S.E.2d 302 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “In the alternative, the insurer argues that the judgment should be reduced by the difference between the property tax assessed value for the dwelling $42,053, and the policy amount for the dwelling $72,000.”
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Brown, 385 S.E.2d 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Georgia Farm Bureau further contends that plaintiff failed to prove that the insured house was “wholly destroyed by fire,” thus justifying recovery for the policy limits under OCGA § 33-32-5 (a). This Code section provides in pertinent part as follows: “Whenever any policy of…”
Forbus v. Allstate Ins., 603 F. Supp. 113 (N.D. Ga. 1984). “, § 33-32-5 states that whenever any insured residential building is wholly destroyed by fire “the amount of insurance set forth in the policy relative to the building or structure shall be taken conclusively to be the value of the property except to the extent of any…”
Ussery v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins., 150 F. Supp. 3d 1329 (M.D. Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “2012) (“Georgia’s Valued Policy Statute, O.C.G.A. § 33-32-5, provides that when a residential building is wholly destroyed by fire [without fraudulent fault], the amount of insurance set out in the policy is.”
Johnny Harmon v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 488 F. App'x 419 (11th Cir. 2012). “* Georgia’s Valued Policy Statute, O.C.G.A. § 33-32-5, provides that when a residential building is wholly destroyed by fire, the amount of insurance set out in the policy is conclusive, except for depreciation.”
Allstate Ins. v. Durham, 392 S.E.2d 53 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “” If the evidence were conclusive that the house was totally destroyed by fire, then the jury could not have awarded anything other than $77,000 pursuant to OCGA § 33-32-5, as a matter of law. It would not have been authorized to award only the value of the house, or more…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— 33-32-5(a) — 2 cases
Dobbs v. Allstate Indem. Co. (M.D. Ga. 2021).
Mia Hollingsworth v. LM Ins. Corp. (11th Cir. 2020).
— 33-32-5(b)(1) — 1 case
Dobbs v. Allstate Indem. Co. (M.D. Ga. 2021).
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.