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

O.C.G.A. § 40-9-100 (2019)

Assigned risk plan

✓ 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) After consultation with insurance companies authorized to issue automobile policies in this state, the Commissioner of Insurance shall approve a reasonable plan or plans for the equitable apportionment among such companies of applicants for motor vehicle liability policies and other automobile policies who are in good faith entitled to but are unable to procure such policies through ordinary methods. When any such plan has been approved, all such insurance companies shall subscribe thereto and participate therein. (b) Any applicant for a policy to be issued under any such plan, any person insured under any such plan, and any insurance company affected may appeal to the Commissioner of Insurance from any ruling or decision of the manager or committee designated to operate such plan. Any person aggrieved by any order or act of the Commissioner of Insurance under this Code section may, within ten days after notice of such order or act, file a petition in the superior court of the county of his residence for a review thereof. The court will summarily hear his petition and may make any appropriate order or decree. (c) A person who has committed no traffic offenses for the prior three years and has had no claims based on fault against an insurer for the prior three years shall not be eligible for a policy to be issued under the plan created by this Code section unless such person’s application or the subsequent investigation on the application discloses reasons for which the person would not be able to procure a policy through ordinary methods.

History

(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.)

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1994, ‘‘Commissioner of Insurance’’ was substituted for

‘‘Insurance Commissioner’’ in the second sentence in subsection (b).

40-9-100 REPORTING ACCIDENTS; PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESP. 40-9-102 JUDICIAL DECISIONS Legislative intent. - 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). Maximum bodily injury limit. - 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). Limit in plan prevails over general law principles. - 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).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobile Insurance, §§ 24, 57. ALR. - 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1983–1994 · leading case: Berryhill v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 329 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Berryhill v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 329 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “In Young the Supreme Court held that in policies issued pursuant to the assigned risk plan set out in OCGA § 40-9-100 (then Code Ann. § 68C-601) the failure to give notice of a lawsuit against the insured to the insurance company by either the insured or any other person did not…”
Cotton States Mut. Ins. v. Starnes, 392 S.E.2d 3 (Ga. 1990). · cites it 2× “, OCGA § 40-9-100 (Assigned risk plan). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive in this context.”
Starnes v. Cotton States Mut. Ins., 390 S.E.2d 419 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “15 ) (1981), the Supreme Court held that an insured’s failure to comply with the notice provisions of a policy of automobile insurance issued pursuant to Georgia’s assigned risk plan (see OCGA § 40-9-100) would not operate to defeat recourse to the policy by a third party,…”
Morris v. Fid. & Cas. Co., 315 S.E.2d 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 40-9-100 (Code Ann. § 68C-601). A signature purporting to be that of “Robert M.”
Schwartz v. Black, 409 S.E.2d 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “However, “ ‘[t]he rights of participants in the assigned risk plan for automobile liability insurance are controlled primarily by [OCGA § 40-9-100] and regulations promulgated in implementation thereof.”
Allstate Ins. v. O'Brien, 324 S.E.2d 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 40-9-100. In this case, there is a question of fact as to whether the insurance agent was acting as appellant’s agent.”
Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Smith, 323 S.E.2d 274 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 40-9-100. The appellant, National Indemnity Company, was randomly selected and required to issue automobile liability insurance based upon the application; the policy duly issued provided for $5,000 basic personal injury protection (PIP) and an additional $20,000…”
Rondale Bus Serv., Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co., 377 S.E.2d 726 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 68C-601 [now OCGA § 40-9-100] indicates a determination by the General Assembly that the innocent should not bear the loss.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cone, 302 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “) (OCGA § 40-9-100). He submitted the application to a broker with the Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company on a form devised by the Automobile Insurance Service Plan in New York, and the appellant issued him a policy providing coverage from October 1,1977, to October…”
Rosshirt v. Cincinnati Ins., 336 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Each of those boxes [on the standard application form] would have required attention be given to [it], and a signature would be required in connection with each completed box.”
Auto Towne Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Hart, 424 S.E.2d 303 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to the rules of the assigned risk plan promulgated by the Georgia Insurance Commissioner pursuant to OCGA § 40-9-100 (a), applications to the plan may be submitted by certain licensed entities such as the agent in this case.”
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. v. Coffman, 311 S.E.2d 854 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “On December 30, 1976, appellee Mary Coffman (then Mary Peacock) applied for “no-fault” automobile insurance under the Assigned Risk Plan, OCGA § 40-9-100 (Ga. Code Ann. § 68C-601 et seq.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.