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

O.C.G.A. § 33-36-5 (2019)

Insurers required to become members of pool

✓ 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

Every insurer authorized to write property or casualty insurance policies in this state shall be a member of the insolvency pool and shall be liable for assessments pursuant to Code Section 33-36-7 and shall also be responsible for the other obligations imposed pursuant to this chapter.

History

Ga. L. 1970, p. 700, § 4.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Purpose and practice of insolvency pool. - When an insurer becomes insolvent, the Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool is required to fulfill the insurer’s obligations to the insured. United States v. Rutland, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 806 (S.D. Ga. 1994), aff ’d, 46 F.3d 71 (11th Cir. 1995).

Cited in Freeman v. Criterion Ins. Co., 693 F.2d 1021 (11th Cir. 1982); Norman Enters. Interior Design, Inc. v. DeKalb County, 245 Ga. App. 538, 538 S.E.2d 130 (2000).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Sufficiency of notice of claim against local government unit as regards

identity, name, address, and residence of claimant, 53 A.L.R.5th 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool v. Hulsey Env't Servs., Inc., 748 S.E.2d 380 (Ga. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool v. Hulsey Env't Servs., Inc., 748 S.E.2d 380 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Southeastern United States Insurance Company (“SEUS”) became a member of GIIP on June 23, 2006, when it was converted from a captive issuer to a standard issuer.”
Norman Enter. Interior Design, Inc. v. Dekalb Cnty., 538 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 33-36-5. In the event an insurer is determined to be insolvent, the coverage afforded by property and casualty insurance policies issued by such insurer shall, with respect to covered claims, become the obligation of the pool for a period of 30 days from the date of such…”
United States v. Rutland, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 806 (S.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “Moreover, “every insurer authorized to write property or casualty insurance policies in this state shall be members of the insolvency pool,” O.C.G.A. § 33-36-5, and: in the event an insurer is determined to be insolvent, the coverage afforded by property and casualty insurance…”
Peeples Indus., Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 377 S.E.2d 691 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 33-36-5. The parties appear to be in further agreement that subrogation claims such as those asserted by the appellants in this case are not recoverable from the Georgia pool.”
Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool v. Carla R. Dubose (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 33-36-5; 33-36-7.1. As a result, guaranty associations have been viewed by courts as a guarantor of last resort, providing benefits only when there is no other insurance available.”
Cathy Brandenburg as Guardian of William Rhys Gulnick v. City of Vidalia (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “comply with [OCGA § 36-33-5 (e)] 4 Brandenburg’s argument that she need only demonstrate substantial compliance with the notice requirements of OCGA § 33-36-5 and that she, in fact, substantially complied with those requirements is unavailing.”
City of Alpharetta v. Deanna Francis (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs argue that the ante litem notice requirements of OCGA § 33-36-5 do not apply to their inverse condemnation cause of action.”
Jermaine Wallace v. City of Atlanta (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). “Lastly, the Wallaces argue that the ante litem notice requirements of OCGA § 33-36-5 (b) do not apply to their continuing nuisance claim.”
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.