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

O.C.G.A. § 33-34-8 (2019)

Rules and regulations

✓ 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

The Commissioner shall provide by rule or regulation procedures for the expeditious and efficient settlement of first-party property damage claims under personal private passenger motor vehicle policies. Such procedures may include, but shall not be limited to: (1) Loss of use reimbursements; (2) Cost of repairs; (3) Determination of fair market value on total losses; (4) Use of aftermarket parts; (5) Time limitations for payments of claims for property damage by insureds; and (6) Establishment of a panel for arbitration of disputed property damage claims where such claims involve total losses.

History

Code 1981, § 33-34-8, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 1608, § 1.12.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Conditional payment of benefit. - Insurance company’s conditional payment of Georgia’s basic no-fault benefits in an effort to settle litigation did not constitute an admission that Georgia no-fault insur-

ance provisions applied, or an admission of liability or bad faith. Johnson v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co., 954 F.2d 1581 (11th Cir. 1992).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1983–1997 · leading case: Thomas v. Georgia Am. Ins. Co., 387 S.E.2d 401 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas v. Georgia Am. Ins. Co., 387 S.E.2d 401 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 14× “He made a claim for PIP benefits under the Occidental policy, which Occidental paid after reducing the available benefits pursuant to OCGA § 33-34-8 (b), (c) by the amount of medical expenses and lost wages paid by workers’ compensation.”
Shipes v. Hanover Ins., 670 F. Supp. 354 (M.D. Ga. 1987). · cites it 18× “The court said, however, that no-fault benefits “may be reduced by the amount paid under workers’ compensation where the benefits payable under the chapter are provided by an employer obligated to provide workers’ compensation benefits.”
Cincinnati Ins. v. Westbrook, 373 S.E.2d 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 12× “He urges, however, that, notwithstanding any restrictive definition of “covered person” contained in the policy, he is nevertheless entitled to recover medical payments benefits because OCGA § 33-34-8 (d) mandates that, as a matter of law, he be afforded that coverage.”
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1324 v. Roberts, 434 S.E.2d 450 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 2× “Moreover, former OCGA § 33-34-8 (a), which was also cited as authority in Mowery , clearly rendered the collateral source evidence irrelevant and compelled the holding that the no-fault carrier could not rely defensively upon the claimant’s receipt of workers’ compensation…”
Ray Shipes v. The Hanover Ins. Co., Ray Shipes v. Hanover Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 1357 (11th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “On April 17, 1986, Shipes’s attorney, invoking his interpretation of O.C.G.A. § 33-34-8(c) (1982), wrote Hanover’s claims representative, Emita Hyman, to demand that Shipes’s benefits be adjusted upward by $11.”
Hinton v. Interstate Guar. Ins., 480 S.E.2d 842 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 2× “[4] OCGA § 33-34-1 to OCGA § 33-34-8. [5] Hinton v. Interstate Guaranty Ins.”
Shipes v. Hanover Ins., 687 F. Supp. 601 (M.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 13× “Additionally, defendant points out that in Shipes, supra, this court was the first court to address directly the correlation of benefits under O.C.G.A. § 33-34-8. Prior to this court’s order, defendant relied for its benefits determination upon Brown v.”
Hall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 S.E.2d 530 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 4× “Hall contends that the only benefits “required” by the no-fault chapter are the minimum $5,000 PIP of OCGA § 33-34-4 (a) (2). Thus, Hall claims, he is entitled to his $5,000 medical payment benefits because it is in excess of the required minimum amount of no-fault benefits,…”
Doran v. Travelers Indem. Co., 326 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “Travelers thus refused payment of the basic PIP benefits after the statute had been amended but before the Supreme Court had reviewed the Court of Appeals’ decision in Boston Old Colony.”
Lyndon B. Johnson v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of North Carolina, 954 F.2d 1581 (11th Cir. 1992). “O.C.G.A. § 33-34-8(c). In an attempt to settle this litigation, Occidental wrote Johnson’s attorney and tendered a draft in the amount of $7,522 which represented payment of Johnson’s $5,000 no-fault claim plus interest and the statutory twenty-five percent penalty under O.”
Gerlinde G. Ryan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 276 (11th Cir. 1991). “DISCUSSION Although the parties differ by only a small amount, we believe that this case raises an important and unsettled question of Georgia law: Whether, under the terms of the policy, survivors’ loss benefits automatically exhaust all of the benefits available under the…”
Equitable Gen. Ins. v. Johnson, 303 S.E.2d 757 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “(See, as to coordination of such benefits, OCGA § 33-34-8 (Code Ann. § 56-3409b)). At some time on or before July 11, 1980, Johnson’s attorney agreed to accept $608.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 33-34-8(c) — 4 cases
Shipes v. Hanover Ins., 670 F. Supp. 354 (M.D. Ga. 1987). “The court said, however, that no-fault benefits “may be reduced by the amount paid under workers’ compensation where the benefits payable under the chapter are provided by an employer obligated to provide workers’ compensation benefits.”
Ray Shipes v. The Hanover Ins. Co., Ray Shipes v. Hanover Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 1357 (11th Cir. 1989). “On April 17, 1986, Shipes’s attorney, invoking his interpretation of O.C.G.A. § 33-34-8(c) (1982), wrote Hanover’s claims representative, Emita Hyman, to demand that Shipes’s benefits be adjusted upward by $11.”
Shipes v. Hanover Ins., 687 F. Supp. 601 (M.D. Ga. 1988). “Additionally, defendant points out that in Shipes, supra, this court was the first court to address directly the correlation of benefits under O.C.G.A. § 33-34-8. Prior to this court’s order, defendant relied for its benefits determination upon Brown v.”
Lyndon B. Johnson v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of North Carolina, 954 F.2d 1581 (11th Cir. 1992). “O.C.G.A. § 33-34-8(c). In an attempt to settle this litigation, Occidental wrote Johnson’s attorney and tendered a draft in the amount of $7,522 which represented payment of Johnson’s $5,000 no-fault claim plus interest and the statutory twenty-five percent penalty under O.”
— 33-34-8(d) — 1 case
Gerlinde G. Ryan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 276 (11th Cir. 1991). “DISCUSSION Although the parties differ by only a small amount, we believe that this case raises an important and unsettled question of Georgia law: Whether, under the terms of the policy, survivors’ loss benefits automatically exhaust all of the benefits available under the…”
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.