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

O.C.G.A. § 33-5-54 (2019)

Service of process upon solicitor, collector, or other agent of insurer

✓ 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

Service of process in any action or proceeding shall be valid if served upon any person within this state who, in this state on behalf of the insurer, is:

(1) Soliciting insurance;

(2) Making, issuing, or delivering any contract of insurance; or

(3) Collecting or receiving any premium, membership fee, assessment, or other consideration for insurance and a copy of the process is sent within ten days thereafter by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery by the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney to the defendant at the last known principal place of business of the defendant; and the defendant’s receipt, or the receipt issued by the post office with which the letter is registered or certified, showing the name of the sender of the letter and the name and address of the person to whom the letter is addressed and the affidavit of the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney showing a compliance with the requirements of this Code section are filed with the clerk of the court in which the action is pending on or before the date the defendant is required to appear or within such further time as the court may allow.

History

Code 1933, § 56-607, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1090, § 2; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3.

Annotations

Cross references. - Service of process generally, § 9-11-4. Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 16, not codified by the General Assem-

bly, provided that the amendment to this Code section by Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3,

was applicable with respect to notices delivered on or after July 1, 2000.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Congress Re-Insurance Corp. v. Archer-Western Contractors, 226 Ga. App. 829, 487 S.E.2d 679 (1997).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1997–1999 · leading case: Cong. Re-Ins. Corp. v. Archer-W. Contractors, Ltd., 487 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cong. Re-Ins. Corp. v. Archer-W. Contractors, Ltd., 487 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 10× “on behalf of Congress, alleging that Morgan was Congress’s agent for service pursuant to OCGA § 33-5-54 because Morgan solicited, made, issued, and delivered surety insurance contracts in Georgia, received premiums and assessments therefor, and was an agent of Congress.”
Am. Mfg. Mut. Ins. v. Tison Hog Mkt., Inc., 182 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999). “2d 679 (1997) (surety subject to service of process under O.C.G.A. § 33-5-54). As discussed below, however, this fact has no bearing on the impact of substantive provisions of Georgia insurance law on surety contracts.”
Am. Mfrs. v. Tison Hog, 182 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999). “829 (1997) (surety subject to service of process under O.C.G.A. § 33-5-54). As discussed below, however, this fact has no bearing on the impact of substantive provisions of Georgia insurance law on surety contracts.”
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.