O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-40-1 (2019)

Purpose

✓ 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 purpose of this chapter is to regulate the formation and operation of risk retention groups in this state formed pursuant to the provisions of the federal Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986 (RRA 1986).

History

Code 1981, § 33-40-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 875, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2018–2018 · leading case: Reis v. OOIDA Risk Retention Grp., Inc., 814 S.E.2d 338 (Ga. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Reis v. OOIDA Risk Retention Grp., Inc., 814 S.E.2d 338 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “at 104 ; see OCGA § 33-40-1 et seq. The Wadsworth court found that such a direct action statute, which is in derogation of the common law, vested a substantive right in an injured party against a tortfeasor's insurer.”

Reis v. Ooida Risk Retentiongroup, Inc., 303 Ga. 659 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff then filed a direct action against the chiropractor’s insurer, a risk retention group not domiciled in New York, pursuant to a New York insurance law11 that required insurance policies issued in New York to contain a provision permitting, in specified…”

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.