O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-5-1 (2019)

Representation of unauthorized insurers prohibited

✓ 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) No person in this state shall:

(1) Represent an insurer who is not at the time duly authorized to transact insurance in this state in the solicitation, negotiation, or effectuation of insurance, inspection of risks, fixing of rates, investigation or adjustment of losses, collection of premiums, or in any other manner in the transaction of insurance with respect to subjects of insurance, resident, located, or to be performed in this state; or

(2) Represent any person in the procuring of insurance with an unauthorized insurer upon or with relation to any subject of insurance.

(b) This Code section shall not apply to:

(1) Surplus line insurance which is authorized by this chapter and transactions as to which a certificate of authority is not required of an insurer under Code Section 33-3-2;

(2) Reinsurance as authorized by Code Section 33-7-14;

(3) The services of an adjuster with respect to claims under policies lawfully solicited, issued, and delivered outside of Georgia;

(4) Acceptance of service by the Commissioner pursuant to this title;

(5) The professional services of an attorney; or

(6) Any insurance company or underwriter issuing contracts of insurance to nuclear insureds, nor to any contract of insurance issued to any one or more nuclear insureds, provided that such nuclear insured under a contract procured from an unauthorized insurer shall pay to the Commissioner before March 1 of the succeeding calendar year following the year in which the insurance was so effectuated, continued, or renewed, a premium receipts tax of 4 percent of the gross premiums charged for such insurance. For the purposes of this paragraph, a ‘‘nuclear insured’’ is an insured purchasing policies of insurance on risks on its own nuclear generating plants and other facilities at such plants in this state.

History

Code 1933, § 56-601, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, § 1; Ga. L. 1972, p. 476, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 33; Ga. L. 2019, p. 337, § 1-23/SB 132. The 2019 amendment, effective July 1, 2019, deleted ‘‘of Insurance’’ following

‘‘Commissioner’’ in the first sentence of paragraph (b)(6).

Annotations

Cross references. - Liability of persons making contracts for unauthorized insurers, § 33-23-42.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Preservation of right to raise untimely notice objection. - Surplus insurers were authorized to file a declaratory judgment action to preserve their right to raise untimely notice of an occurrence as a defense to coverage even without a certificate of authority to conduct business in the State of Georgia. Kay-Lex Co. v. Essex Ins. Co., 286 Ga. App. 484, 649 S.E.2d 602 (2007).

Cited in American Sur. Co. v. Smallon, 54 Ga. App. 45, 186 S.E. 892 (1936); National Sur. Corp. v. Boney, 215 Ga. 271, 110 S.E.2d 406 (1959); Service Cas. Co. v. Carr, 101 Ga. App. 70, 113 S.E.2d 175 (1960); Gordy Tire Co. v. Dayton Rubber Co., 216 Ga. 83, 114 S.E.2d 529 (1960); Chatham County Hosp. Auth. v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 325 F. Supp. 614 (S.D. Ga. 1971).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, § 43. ALR. - Personal liability of agents or

brokers in respect of policies of foreign insurance companies not authorized to do business in the state, 131 A.L.R. 1079.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2007–2014 · leading case: Kay-Lex Co. v. Essex Ins., 649 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
Kay-Lex Co. v. Essex Ins., 649 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” See OCGA § 33-5-1 et seq. That chapter specifically authorizes the procurement of surplus line insurance from insurers who have not been authorized to sell insurance in Georgia, as long as, among other things, it is procured through a licensed surplus line broker.”
Khan v. Landmark Am. Ins., 757 S.E.2d 151 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “It is undisputed that the insurance policy at issue in this case is a surplus line contract *541 governed by OCGA § 33-5-1 et seq. As mandated by OCGA § 33-5-34 (a), an action against an insurer under such a surplus line contract pursuant to this chapter “shall be brought.”
Jamil Khan v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “It is undisputed that the insurance policy at issue in this case is a surplus line contract governed by OCGA § 33-5-1 et seq. As mandated by OCGA § 33-5-34 (a), an action against an insurer under such a surplus line contract pursuant to this chapter “shall be brought .”
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.