Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 33-34-2 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 33-34-2 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 33-34-2

TITLE 33 INSURANCE

Section 34. Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations, 33-34-1 through 33-34-9.

ARTICLE 2 PREFERRED PROVIDER ARRANGEMENTS

33-34-2. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the term:

  1. "Medical payments coverage" includes any coverage in which the insurer agrees to reimburse the insured and others for reasonable and necessary medical expenses and funeral expenses incurred as a result of bodily injury or death caused by a motor vehicle accident, without regard to the insured's liability for the accident. Coverage shall be available to the named insured, resident spouse, and any resident relative while occupying the covered motor vehicle, and to any other person legally occupying a covered motor vehicle. Expenses must be incurred for services rendered within three years from the date of the accident; provided, however, that nothing shall prevent an insurer from allowing a longer period of time. Any rule or regulation promulgated which expands or conflicts with this definition shall be null and void.
  2. "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle having more than three load-bearing wheels of a kind required to be registered under the laws of this state relating to motor vehicles designed primarily for operation upon the public streets, roads, and highways and driven by power other than muscular power. The term includes a trailer drawn by or attached to such a vehicle and also includes without limitation a low-speed vehicle.
  3. "Owner" means the natural person, corporation, firm, partnership, cooperative, association, group, trust, estate, organization, or other entity in whose name the motor vehicle has been registered. If no registration is in effect at the time of an accident involving the motor vehicle, the term means the natural person, corporation, firm, partnership, cooperative, association, group, trust, estate, organization, or other entity who holds the legal title to the motor vehicle or, in the event the motor vehicle is subject to a security agreement or lease with an option to purchase with the debtor or the lessee having the right to possession, the term means the debtor or the lessee.
  4. "Self-insurer" means any owner who has on file with the Commissioner of Insurance an approved plan of self-insurance which provides for coverages, benefits, and efficient claims handling procedures substantially equivalent to those afforded by a policy of automobile liability insurance that complies with all of the requirements of this chapter.

(Code 1981, §33-34-2, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 1608, § 1.12; Ga. L. 1997, p. 683, § 4; Ga. L. 2002, p. 512, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For article, "No-Fault Automobile Insurance In Georgia: Is Revision in Order?", see 27 Ga. St. B.J. 68 (1990).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 33-34-2, and Ga. L. 1975, p. 1207, §§ 1, 2, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Farm tractor was "motor vehicle" based on uninsured motorist statute.

- Farm tractor towing a mobile home on a county road was a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute, O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11. Hinton v. Interstate Guar. Ins. Co., 267 Ga. 516, 480 S.E.2d 842 (1997).

Ownership upon delivery even without compliance with recording and insurance statutes.

- When a seller had delivered possession of the automobile to the buyer and the transaction was complete as between them even though compliance had not yet been made with recording and insurance statutes, the buyer was the "owner" of the automobile, and the buyer alone, and not the seller or the seller's insurer, was liable to a third party for injuries sustained in an accident while the buyer was driving the automobile. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 149 Ga. App. 280, 253 S.E.2d 825 (1979) (decided under former Ga. L. 1975, p. 1202, §§ 1, 2).

Plan and certificate of self-insurance serves as substantial equivalent of an insurance "policy" for the purposes of O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11. Unless the plan of self-insurance submitted to the commissioner of public safety rejects the minimum uninsured motorist coverage in writing, such coverage will be implied as contained in the plan. Twyman v. Robinson, 255 Ga. 711, 342 S.E.2d 313 (1986).

"Self-insured" who complies with self-insurance law is not financially irresponsible but rather is meeting the state's required minimum, and the self-insurer does not become financially irresponsible just because it chooses the state-permitted option not to insure above the minimum. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Parnham, 182 Ga. App. 823, 357 S.E.2d 139 (1987) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 33-34-2).

Exclusion in a car rental agreement excluding liability coverage for violations of a use restriction pertaining to driving under the influence was invalid to the extent of the mandatory minimum liability coverage. Ryan v. Boyd, 911 F. Supp. 524 (M.D. Ga. 1996).

No-fault benefits denied for homicide following vehicular abduction.

- When the insured automobile was not used to murder the victim nor was the focus of the crime, but was simply used to transport the victim to another state, the use of the vehicle was too remote and attenuated to establish the required causal nexus, such that the spouse was not entitled to a survivor's no-fault benefits. USAA Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wilbur, 207 Ga. App. 57, 427 S.E.2d 49 (1993).

Cited in Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Martin, 264 Ga. 347, 444 S.E.2d 739 (1994); Hewell v. Walton County, 292 Ga. App. 510, 664 S.E.2d 875 (2008).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under Ga. L. 1974, p. 113, § 2, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Legislative intent regarding certification of self-insurers.

- Manifest legislative intent, as it appears in the definition of "self-insurer" and as a whole, is for the Department of Public Safety to certify as self-insurers only those owners who undertake to provide reparations on the same terms and conditions as an insurer. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 74-86 (decided under Ga. L. 1974, p. 113, § 2).

Self-insurers deemed regulated entities.

- Self-insurance funds for automobile liability are regulated entities for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 21-5-30.1. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 94-20.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Motorcycle as within contract, statute, or ordinance in relation to motor cars, motor-driven cars, etc., 70 A.L.R. 1253.

Insurance against injuring property or person of third person as liability of indemnity insurance, 83 A.L.R. 677; 117 A.L.R. 239.

Trailers as affecting automobile insurance, 31 A.L.R.2d 298; 65 A.L.R.3d 804.

Meaning of "operate" or "being operated" within clause of automobile liability policy limiting its coverage, 51 A.L.R.2d 924.

Automobile insurance: when is a person "occupying" an automobile within meaning of medical payments provision, 42 A.L.R.3d 501.

What constitutes "commercial automobile" within exclusion from death or disability benefit provided by automobile policy, 66 A.L.R.3d 424.

Motorcycle as within automobile liability policy provision covering temporary or infrequent use of other automobiles, 66 A.L.R.3d 451.

Who is "named insured" within meaning of automobile insurance coverage, 91 A.L.R.3d 1280.

What constitutes "private passenger automobile" in insurance policy provisions defining risks covered or excepted, 11 A.L.R.4th 475.

Automobile insurance: what constitutes "occupying" under owned-vehicle exclusion on uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage of automobile insurance policy, 59 A.L.R.5th 191.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 33-34-2

Total Results: 20  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Prot. Ins. v. Johnson, 352 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 1987).

Cited 46 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 13, 1987 | 256 Ga. 713

...ned while occupying any motor vehicle. "Motor vehicle" is defined to include an attached trailer. "Occupying" is defined as "to be in or upon a motor vehicle or engaged in the immediate act of entering into or alighting from the motor vehicle." OCGA § 33-34-2 (6) (8)....
Copy

Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 785 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 32 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 27, 2015 | 770 S.E.2d 824

Copy

Twyman v. Robinson, 342 S.E.2d 313 (Ga. 1986).

Cited 29 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 24, 1986 | 255 Ga. 711

...t coverage that they felt was included in the self-insurance plan. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that self-insurers are not required by law to provide uninsured motorist coverage. There statutes relate closely to this action. OCGA §§ 33-34-2 (12) and 40-9-101 set out the requirements for a valid plan of self-insurance. OCGA § 33-7-11 determines the extent of uninsured motorist coverage required in motor vehicle liability policies. OCGA §§ 33-34-2 (12) and 40-9-101 mandate that self-insurance plans "provide coverages, benefits, and claims handling procedures substantially equivalent to those afforded by a policy" of motor vehicle insurance in compliance with Title 33, Chapter 34 of the OCGA....
Copy

Hendricks v. State, 290 Ga. 238 (Ga. 2011).

Cited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 29, 2011 | 719 S.E.2d 466, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 3852

Copy

Smith v. Se. Fid. Ins., 365 S.E.2d 105 (Ga. 1988).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 25, 1988 | 258 Ga. 15

...The exclusion in this case, like the one in Southeastern Fidelity *16 Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 256 Ga. 713 (352 SE2d 760) (1987), excludes from coverage job related activities performed while "Occupying" or "Operating" a "Motor vehicle" as these terms are defined in OCGA § 33-34-2....
Copy

Davenport v. State, 656 S.E.2d 844 (Ga. 2008).

Cited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 28, 2008 | 283 Ga. 171, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 230

Copy

Hinton v. Interstate Guar. Ins., 480 S.E.2d 842 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 24, 1997 | 267 Ga. 516, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 599

...The statute, however, does not define the term "motor vehicle." In the present case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals construed the term "motor vehicle" in the uninsured motorist statute to include only those motor vehicles that meet the definition of "motor vehicle" in OCGA § 33-34-2(1), which code section sets forth the type of vehicles required to have mandatory liability insurance under the "Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act." [4] The definition of motor vehicle in § 33-34-2(1) is as follows: *844 (1) "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle having more than three load-bearing wheels of a kind required to be registered under the laws of this state relating to motor vehicles designed primarily for operation upon the public streets, roads, and highways and driven by power other than muscular power....
...Co., 132 Ga.App. 79, 208 S.E.2d 1 (1974); see also McDaniel v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 205 Va. 815, 139 S.E.2d 806 (1965). [6] Limiting the definition of motor vehicle for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute to the definition set forth in § 33-34-2(1) could lead to unjust and absurd results....
...ee load bearing wheels of a kind required to be registered under the laws of this state relating to motor vehicles designed primarily for operation upon the public streets, roads and highways and driven by power other than muscular power." *846 OCGA § 33-34-2(1)....
Copy

Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Martin, 264 Ga. 347 (Ga. 1994).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 27, 1994 | 444 S.E.2d 739, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 2214

...Compulsory insurance required that no motor vehicle registered in Georgia could operate unless the owner had minimum liability insurance. OCGA § 33-34-3 (a). In addition, "insured" was statutorily defined to include one driving an insured car with the permission of the owner. OCGA § 33-34-2 (5)....
Copy

Collins v. Int'l Indem. Co., 349 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. 1986).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 4, 1986 | 256 Ga. 493

...The question of which classification fits Collins becomes important because the no-fault insurance act extends no protection to motorcycles or their occupants. The act covers motor vehicles which are defined as vehicles having more than three load-bearing wheels. OCGA § 33-34-2 (6)....
...ying a motor vehicle or motorcycle or any other motor driven vehicle designed primarily for operation upon the public streets, roads and highways or not in or upon a vehicle operated on stationary rails or tracks or not in or upon any aircraft. OCGA § 33-34-2 (11). The question then arises as to the meaning of the word "occupying" and the Code explains that it means ". . . to be in or upon a motor vehicle or engaged in the immediate act of entering into or alighting from the motor vehicle." OCGA § 33-34-2 (8)....
...All the Justices concur, except Marshall, C. J., who concurs in the judgment only, and Weltner and Bell, JJ., who dissent. GREGORY, Justice, concurring. I concur in the majority opinion and write only to state my extended view of the meaning of OCGA § 33-34-2 (8) and (11)....
Copy

Cannon v. Lardner, 368 S.E.2d 730 (Ga. 1988).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 3, 1988 | 258 Ga. 332

...(b) If, however, she were not eligible to recover under that policy, she would not be barred from pursuing Lardner for the $1,800 by which her medical expenses exceeded her own "minimum coverage." 3. This issue is resolved by the statutory definition of "insured." (a) OCGA § 33-34-2 (5) provides: Insured means, in addition to the insured named in the policy, his spouse and children if residing in the same household, any pedestrian struck by the insured vehicle, and any other person using or occupying the insured vehicle with the express or implied permission of the named insured or his spouse....
Copy

First Fin. Ins. v. Rainey, 401 S.E.2d 490 (Ga. 1991).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 21, 1991 | 261 Ga. 52

...We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals, First Financial Insurance Co. v. Rainey, 195 Ga.App. 655, 394 S.E.2d 774 (1990). In this opinion we consider whether injuries suffered by a child arose out of the operation, maintenance, or use of an insured vehicle as a vehicle within the contemplation of OCGA § 33-34-2(1) and (9), and whether the insurer may be liable for bad-faith penalties, attorney fees, and punitive damages pursuant to OCGA § 33-34-6(b) and (c)....
...The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendants concerning basic medical benefits. In so affirming, the Court held that the child's injuries arose out of the operation, maintenance, or use of the insured vehicle as a vehicle within the contemplation of § 33-34-2....
Copy

Denison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 258 Ga. 269 (Ga. 1988).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 12, 1988 | 367 S.E.2d 801

...Denison under its insurance policy issued pursuant to the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act. OCGA § 33-34-1 et seq. Allstate contended the van was not being used as a vehicle as required under the act. For that, Allstate relied on OCGA § 33-34-2 (9) which provides in part, “ ‘(o)peration, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle’ means operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a vehicle.” It is agreed there is no coverage if the van was not used as a vehicle at th...
Copy

Clark v. State, 912 S.E.2d 593 (Ga. 2025).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 18, 2025 | 321 Ga. 35

Copy

Morrison v. State, 526 S.E.2d 336 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 14, 2000 | 272 Ga. 129, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 593

Copy

Williams, Congresswoman v. Powell, 320 Ga. 221 (Ga. 2024).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 31, 2024

Copy

Franklin v. State, 303 Ga. 165 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 5, 2018

Copy

Franklin v. State, 810 S.E.2d 118 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 5, 2018

Copy

Hubert v. S. Gen. Ins., 261 Ga. 227 (Ga. 1991).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 10, 1991 | 403 S.E.2d 802

...spouse under a policy of automobile insurance is entitled to recover basic no-fault benefits under that policy only for economic loss occasioned while occupying or using the insured vehicle or while occupying an uninsured vehicle as provided by OCGA § 33-34-2 (5). The issue here is whether appellant is entitled to recover basic no-fault benefits from her own carrier when she is neither using nor occupying the insured vehicle nor injured by a non-insured motorist....
...’s policy until she exhausted her own. Smith v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., supra, involved an exclusion when the insured was involved in job related activities while “occupying” or “operating” a “motor vehicle” as defined by OCGA § 33-34-2....
...lting from 1) accidental bodily injury sustained ... by the insured and spouse and children if residing in the insured’s household . . . while occupying any motor vehicle or while a pedestrian as the result of being struck by a motor vehicle. OCGA § 33-34-2 (5) defines “insured” as including his spouse and children residing in the household, any pedestrian struck by the insured vehicle, and any person using or occupying the insured vehicle with permission. This subsection also provides that “insured” shall include the named insured, spouse, or resident relative occupying or struck by a motor vehicle not similarly insured under OCGA § 33-34-4 (a) (2). In Cannon we construed § 33-34-2 (5) to mean that “occupying or using the insured vehicle” is a prerequisite for a household member to be an “insured” because this provision would be rendered meaningless if construed to mean that any resident relative was an “insured” in any eventuality involving any vehicle....
...n. Rather than answering the Court of Appeals questions as posed, *229we hold that there is no conflict between the cases of Cannon v. Lardner and Smith v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., supra. These cases hold that an insured as described in OCGA § 33-34-2 (5) may recover benefits for injuries received while occupying the insured vehicle (or, if a pedestrian, struck by the insured vehicle) or when occupying or struck by a vehicle not similarly insured....

Williams, Congresswoman v. Powell (Ga. 2024).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 31, 2024 | 403 S.E.2d 802

Allen v. State (Ga. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 27, 2015 | 403 S.E.2d 802