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

O.C.G.A. § 33-41-24 (2019)

Rule making authority

✓ 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

Statute text

The Commissioner may adopt rules establishing standards to ensure that a pure captive insurance company's parent or any of its affiliated companies is able to exercise control of the risk management function of any controlled unaffiliated business to be insured by the pure captive insurance company; provided, however, that, until such time as rules under this Code section are adopted, the Commissioner may approve or deny the coverage of such risks by a pure captive insurance company on a case by case basis.

History

(Code 1981, § 33-41-24, enacted by Ga. L. 2019, p. 533, § 2-12/HB 99.)

Annotations

Effective date. - This Code section became effective July 1, 2019.

Editor's notes. - Ga. L. 2019, p. 533, § 2-11/HB 99, effective July 1, 2019, repealed the former Code section and enacted the current Code section. The former Code section, relating to inapplicability of inconsistent provisions, was based on Code 1981, § 33-41-24, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 966, § 2; Ga. L. 2016, p. 825, § 1/SB 347.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2010–2010 · leading case: Lemos v. Electrolux North Am., Inc., 937 N.E.2d 984 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lemos v. Electrolux North Am., Inc., 937 N.E.2d 984 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). “, Ga. Code Ann. § 33-41-24 (2005). Still others deal with captives in various other ways.”
VFH Captive Ins. Co. v. Pleitez, 704 S.E.2d 476 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Lastly, OCGA § 33-41-24 provides that “La|ny provisions of this [Insurance] title which are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to captive insurance companies.”
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.