Legal Opinion · Dissent

American Home Assurance Co. v. McCladdie

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 16, 1991No. A91A0250Published

1DissentSognier, Chief Judge

I respectfully dissent.

The majority concludes in Division 2 that, notwithstanding the *800clear language of OCGA § 33-34-5 (d) that “[t]he provisions of subsection (b) . . . requiring explanation of the optional coverages shall not apply upon the renewal ... of any policy,” subsection (b) nonetheless applies to the renewal policy in the case at bar. I cannot agree.

Prior to 1982, subsection (d) of OCGA § 33-34-5 (formerly Ga. Code Ann. § 56-3404b (d)) would have required the result reached by the majority, for at that time the statute provided that “[t]he optional coverage required to be offered…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Buice v. DixonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
  2. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. DrexlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
  3. Tec America, Inc. v. DeKalb County Board of Tax AssessorsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  4. Drexler v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  5. Taylor v. Mateer & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API