Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §33-37-20, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 1424, § 7.)
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1991, "Insurance Department" was substituted twice for "insurance department" in paragraph (a)(5), "excess of " was substituted for "excess if " in the second sentence of paragraph (b)(1), and "report" was substituted for "reports" at the end of paragraph (b)(2).
- State did not waive the state's sovereign immunity in passing the Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act, O.C.G.A. § 33-37-1 et seq., and could not be held liable for excessive administrative charges to a liquidated insurer's estate. However, if the intentional or wanton conduct of the liquidator allowed the excessive charges, the liquidator could be held liable; O.C.G.A. § 33-37-8.1(b) did not provide immunity for intentional or willful and wanton conduct. State of Ga. v. International Indemnity Company, 343 Ga. App. 647, 809 S.E.2d 64 (2017).
- Trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' breach of contract, misrepresentation, and other claims against a workers compensation trust fund because while the court properly concluded that the Georgia Insurance Commissioner, as an appointed receiver, had the exclusive authority to prosecute legal claims that were common to the insolvent trust fund, the court erred in finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to prosecute claims that were personal in nature and not common to the trust fund. Superior Roofing Co. of Ga., Inc. v. Am. Prof'l Risk Servs., 323 Ga. App. 416, 744 S.E.2d 400 (2013).
- 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, § 99 et seq.
- 44 C.J.S., Insurance, § 238 et seq.
- Basis for allowance of claims under policies of insolvent life insurance company, 106 A.L.R. 1513.
Limitations governing action to recover unearned premium retained by insurer upon cancellation of policy, 29 A.L.R.2d 938.
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-02-04
Citation: 823 S.E.2d 806, 305 Ga. 126
Snippet: Specifically, the Court of Appeals considered OCGA §§ 33-37-20 (a) (4) and (5) and 33-37-41 (1) (A), which describe