O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 33-5-51 (2019)

Purpose of article

✓ 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 article is to subject certain insurers to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state in actions by or on behalf of insureds or beneficiaries under insurance contracts. The General Assembly declares that it is a subject of concern that many residents of this state hold policies of insurance issued or delivered in this state by insurers while not authorized to do business in this state, thus presenting to such residents the often insuperable obstacle of resorting to distant forums for the purpose of asserting legal rights under those policies. In furtherance of the state interest, the General Assembly herein provides a method of substituted service of process upon the insurers and declares that in so doing it exercises its power to protect its residents and to define, for the purpose of this article, what constitutes doing business in this state and also exercises power and privileges available to the state by virtue of Public Law 15, 79th Congress of the United States, Chapter 20, 1st Sess., S. 340, which declares that the business of insurance and every person engaged in the business of insurance shall be subject to the laws of the several states.

History

Code 1933, § 56-604, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, § 1.

Annotations

Cross references. - Service of process generally, § 9-11-4.

U.S. Code. - Public Law 15, 79th

Congress of the United States, Chapter 20, 1st Sess., S. 340, referred to in this Code section, is codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1011.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Acts held to constitute doing business and render insurer subject to suit in state. - A life insurance company not authorized to transact business in Georgia because of failure to obtain a certificate of authority from the Insurance Commissioner is nevertheless doing business, although illegally, in the state by accepting an application for insurance from a resident of the state, delivering the

application to the resident by mail, and mailing premium notices to or accepting premiums from the resident during the life of the policy, so as to render it subject to suit and judgment in this state. Iowa State Travelers Mut. Ass’n v. Cadwell, 113 Ga. App. 128, 147 S.E.2d 461 (1966). Cited in Retail Union Health & Welfare Fund v. Seabrum, 240 Ga. 695, 242 S.E.2d 18 (1978).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Bishopsgate Ins. v. Cactus Club, Inc., 335 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
Bishopsgate Ins. v. Cactus Club, Inc., 335 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Appellee contends that the literal language of OCGA § 33-5-52 (3) authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an unauthorized insurer in the mere event that the insurer uses the mail to collect premiums from a Georgia insured and without further regard to any other…”
Jenkins v. Prime Ins. Co. (N.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “O.C.G.A. § 33-5-51. However, the remedy provided for this concern is a mechanism for service of process on the out-of-state insurers and does not involve voiding the policy (or a clause within such policy).”
Jenkins v. Prime Ins. Co. (D. Utah 2021). “O.C.G.A. § 33-5-51. However, the remedy provided for this concern is a mechanism for service of process on the out-of-state insurers and does not involve voiding the policy (or a clause within such policy).”
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.