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

O.C.G.A. § 33-36-10 (2019)

Recovery under chapter of covered claims recoverable under insolvency funds of other states

✓ 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) It is not the purpose of this chapter to provide or permit duplicate recoveries of covered claims under this chapter and an insolvency fund or its equivalent of any other state. In the construction and application of this chapter with respect to a covered claim which may be recoverable under this chapter and under an insolvency fund or its equivalent in another state, the sole recovery: (1) with respect to a workers’ compensation claim, shall be under the insolvency fund or its equivalent of the state of residence of the claimant; (2) with respect to a first-party claim of an insured for damage to or destruction of property with a permanent location, shall be under the insolvency fund or its equivalent of the state where the property is permanently situated; and (3) with respect to any other covered claim, shall be under the insolvency fund or its equivalent of the state of residence of the insured. (b) Any recovery obtained from the pool pursuant to this chapter shall be reduced by those amounts recovered in any other state from a similar or equivalent insolvency fund in such state when the recovery was obtained by the same claimant for the same claim filed against the pool in this state.

History

Ga. L. 1970, p. 700, § 16; Ga. L. 1989, p. 74, § 6.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Choice of law. - Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool Act, O.C.G.A. § 33-36-1 et seq., did not bar the assignee’s subrogation claim against an insolvent Florida insurer based on the negligent construction of power lines that killed a worker in Georgia because it was not a ‘‘covered claim’’ under O.C.G.A. § 33-36-3(4); also, O.C.G.A. § 33-36-10 did not mandate application of the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association Act, Fla.

Stat. § 631.50-.70, because O.C.G.A. § 33-36-10 was intended to prevent duplicative recoveries when more than one state’s insolvent insurer scheme applied, rather than to referee the more general question of which state’s statutory scheme controlled in a conflict of law situation. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch. v. R. D. Moody & Assocs., 468 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Conex Freight Sys., Inc. v. Georgia Ins. Insolvency Pool, 561 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Conex Freight Sys., Inc. v. Georgia Ins. Insolvency Pool, 561 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “Specifically, in OCGA § 33-36-10 (a), the legislature prohibited “duplicate recoveries of covered claims under [the Act] and an insolvency fund or its equivalent of any other state.”
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch. v. R.D. Moody & Assocs., Inc., 468 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “Section § 33-36-10(a) states: It is not the purpose of this chapter to provide or permit duplicate recoveries of covered claims under this chapter and an insolvency fund or its equivalent of any other state.”
Georgia Insurers Insol. Pool v. Brewer, 602 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1992). “" Ga. Code Ann. § 33-36-10 (a). [8] This provision *1269 is silent on the issue of jurisdiction.”
Victoria Palmer v. Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “, OCGA §§ 33-36-3 (4) (A) - (N) (defining “covered claim” and excluding certain types of claims from that definition); OCGA § 33-36-10 (b) (preventing duplicative recoveries when more than one state’s insolvent insurer scheme applies); OCGA § 33-36-14 (d) (1) (authorizing the…”
— 33-36-10(a) — 1 case
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch. v. R.D. Moody & Assocs., Inc., 468 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006). “Section § 33-36-10(a) states: It is not the purpose of this chapter to provide or permit duplicate recoveries of covered claims under this chapter and an insolvency fund or its equivalent of any other state.”
— 33-36-10(a)(3) — 1 case
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch. v. R.D. Moody & Assocs., Inc., 468 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006). “Section § 33-36-10(a) states: It is not the purpose of this chapter to provide or permit duplicate recoveries of covered claims under this chapter and an insolvency fund or its equivalent of any other state.”
— 33-36-10(b) — 1 case
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Exch. v. R.D. Moody & Assocs., Inc., 468 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006). “Section § 33-36-10(a) states: It is not the purpose of this chapter to provide or permit duplicate recoveries of covered claims under this chapter and an insolvency fund or its equivalent of any other state.”
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.