Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1951, p. 565, § 17; Ga. L. 1963, p. 593, § 10; Code 1933, § 68C-601, enacted by Ga. L. 1977, p. 1014, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 738, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 97, § 40.)
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1994, "Commissioner of Insurance" was substituted for "Insurance Commissioner" in the second sentence in subsection (b).
- Enactment of assigned risk plan found in O.C.G.A. § 40-9-100 indicates a determination by the General Assembly that an innocent party should not bear the loss. Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., 248 Ga. 350, 282 S.E.2d 115 (1981).
- Policy issued pursuant to the plan can provide a maximum bodily injury liability limit of $100,000 per person. Schwartz v. Black, 200 Ga. App. 735, 409 S.E.2d 681, cert. denied, 200 Ga. App. 897, 409 S.E.2d 681 (1991).
- Since the plan itself provides a maximum bodily injury liability limit of $100,000, reliance upon principles of general contract and insurance law to assert a greater limit in the instant case is unavailing. Schwartz v. Black, 200 Ga. App. 735, 409 S.E.2d 681, cert. denied, 200 Ga. App. 897, 409 S.E.2d 681 (1991).
Failure of insured to notify insurer of lawsuit against the insured does not constitute defense to insurer's liability. This is true even though the insurance has been extended by the insurer under the assigned risk plan set out in O.C.G.A. § 40-9-100. Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., 248 Ga. 350, 282 S.E.2d 115 (1981).
Insured's failure to comply with the notice provisions of a policy of automobile insurance issued pursuant to Georgia's assigned risk plan would not operate to defeat recourse to the policy by a third party when the insurer received prompt and adequate notice of the pendency of litigation, and there was no suggestion that the insurer's ability to defend had been prejudiced in any way by the failure of the insured to provide the insurer with prior notice of an accident. Starnes v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 194 Ga. App. 320, 390 S.E.2d 419, aff'd, 260 Ga. 235, 392 S.E.2d 3 (1990).
Cited in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Young, 638 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1981); Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coffman, 169 Ga. App. 192, 311 S.E.2d 854 (1983); National Indem. Co. v. Smith, 172 Ga. App. 415, 323 S.E.2d 274 (1984); Allstate Ins. Co. v. O'Brien, 172 Ga. App. 693, 324 S.E.2d 498 (1984); Berryhill v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 174 Ga. App. 97, 329 S.E.2d 189 (1985); Moore v. Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co., 179 Ga. App. 247, 345 S.E.2d 894 (1986); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 213 Ga. App. 384, 444 S.E.2d 414 (1994).
- 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobile Insurance, §§ 24, 57.
- Automobile liability insurance, 13 A.L.R. 135; 19 A.L.R. 879; 23 A.L.R. 1472; 28 A.L.R. 1301; 41 A.L.R. 507.
Cancellation of compulsory or "financial responsibility" automobile insurance, 44 A.L.R.4th 13.
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1990-06-07
Citation: 392 S.E.2d 3, 260 Ga. 235
Snippet: relationships that are contractual in nature. E.g., OCGA § 40-9-100 (Assigned risk plan). Therefore, the argument