Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 33-34-9 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 33-34-9 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 33-34-9

TITLE 33 INSURANCE

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

ARTICLE 2 PREFERRED PROVIDER ARRANGEMENTS

33-34-9. Proceeds of insurance policy; limited access by insurers to records.

  1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any claim involving a total loss of a vehicle which is subject to more than one lien, the proceeds of an insurance policy shall be applied to pay in full the debt owed to the senior lienholder before any proceeds of an insurance policy shall be applied to any other lien on the vehicle.
  2. For the purpose of implementing this Code section, at the discretion of the state revenue commissioner, an insurer may be granted access via electronic means to individual motor vehicle records.Any such access shall be in accordance with Code Section 40-3-23, and the Department of Revenue shall establish the application and approval process before allowing any such access.The information provided to an insurer pursuant to this Code section shall be limited to the verification of the vehicle owner's name, vehicle information, and any recorded security interests or liens as shown on the records of the Department of Revenue.

(Code 1981, §33-34-9, enacted by Ga. L. 2002, p. 848, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 334, § 13-2/HB 501.)

Cross references.

- Payment of proceeds of insurance policy where multiple liens on vehicle, § 40-3-61.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Access to information in Registration and Title Information System.

- The Department of Revenue is authorized to provide access to the information contained in the Georgia Registration and Title Information System only for the purposes mandated by the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., or to those state agencies designated in O.C.G.A. §§ 33-34-9,40-2-130(c), and40-3-23(d). 2008 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2008-2.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 33-34-9

Total Results: 4  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

McGlohon v. Ogden, 308 S.E.2d 541 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 9, 1983 | 251 Ga. 625

...[2] Thus, loss of income and loss of future earnings are recoverable under minimum mandatory PIP as well as under optional PIP coverage. In Hall v. White, 150 Ga. App. 545, 546 (258 SE2d 256) (1979), the Court of Appeals found that, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the 1974 Act, OCGA § 33-34-9(b) (Code Ann....
Copy

Kelley v. Integon Indem. Corp., 320 S.E.2d 526 (Ga. 1984).

Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 6, 1984 | 253 Ga. 269

..., supra. However, in addition to providing specified benefits without regard to fault to certain specified categories of persons, our no-fault law exempts insured persons from tort liability where benefits are available without regard to fault. OCGA § 33-34-9 (a)....
...We deal here with the coverage required by law, not such coverage as may be provided by a "no-fault" insurance policy. [2] For example, had the deceased injured a pedestrian while driving the welding truck, being an "insured," he would have been exempt from tort liability to the extent provided in OCGA § 33-34-9....
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

...*333 Cannon was insured under her own policy that included both basic and optional personal injury protection benefits. At the time of the collision, she lived with her father, who held an insurance policy on his own vehicle. The trial court, as provided by OCGA § 33-34-9 (b), deducted $2,500 from a $4,300 jury award for medical expenses that was returned in favor of Cannon and against Lardner, who was the driver of the other vehicle. Lardner, however, argues that the entire $4,300 should have been deducted because, he contends, Cannon was eligible to receive, under her father's policy, the remaining $1,800 of medical expenses, [1] and, in that event, OCGA § 33-34-9 (b) would preclude her from recovering the excess from him as the tort-feasor. (a) If Cannon were eligible to collect under the "minimum coverage" (being that required by OCGA § 33-34-4 (a)) of her father's policy, then she could not recover any funds for which she were so eligible from the tort-feasor. OCGA § 33-34-9 (b)....
...(c) Because Cannon is not an "insured" under her father's policy as concerns the collision involved here, she is not "eligible for economic loss benefits" (i. e., for the "minimum coverage" required by OCGA § 33-34-4) under that policy. (d) Accordingly, she is not precluded by OCGA § 33-34-9 from "pleading or recovering in an action for damages against a tort-feasor" — Lardner — those damages for which compensation for economic loss is not available under the "minimum coverage" requirements of OCGA § 33-34-4....
Copy

Allstate Ins. v. Bohannon, 365 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. 1988).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 18, 1988 | 258 Ga. 131

...o recover the sums in dispute from the defendant/insurance carriers is circumscribed to the extent stated, infra, notwithstanding the fact that the sums in dispute constitute benefits for no-fault collision coverage. Under § 10 (b) of the Act, OCGA § 33-34-9 (b), the insured's statutory entitlement extends no further than to bring an action against the tortfeasor for optional no-fault benefits, although the insured is precluded from pleading and recovering damages coterminous with mandatory benefits....