Pearce v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., 35930
Decision Date | 17 June 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 35930,35930 |
Citation | 268 S.E.2d 623,246 Ga. 33 |
Parties | PEARCE v. SOUTHERN GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, William B. Hardegree, Columbus, for appellant.
Page, Scrantom, Harris, McGlamry & Chapman, W. G. Scrantom, Jr., Max R. McGlamry, Columbus, for appellees.
Pursuant to our Rule 36 (Code Ann. § 24-4536, effective August 1, 1979), the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, has certified the questions set forth below based on the following facts (see Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Pearce, 607 F.2d 146, 147-148 (5th Cir. 1979)):
Code Ann. § 56-2409, cited above, and set forth in the footnote, 1 does not specify whether it is to be given retrospective or prospective effect. In some cases it has in fact been given retrospective effect without discussion of this issue, with the result that the insurance policy was voided ab initio. 2 As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted (607 F.2d at 146), and as the parties acknowledge, there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of this court.
It is important to remember that the insurance policy in issue here was issued on October 21, 1975, and is subject to applicable laws in effect at that time. See Davis v. Reserve Ins. Co., 220 Ga. 335, 337, 138 S.E.2d 657 (1964); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Landskroener, 150 Ga.App. 308, 309, 257 S.E.2d 376 (1979), Code Ann. § 56-2418 (Ga.L.1960, pp. 289, 666); Code Ann. § 56-3405b(a) (Ga.L.1974, pp. 113, 118).
The Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act was enacted in 1974 (Ga.L.1974, p. 113) and became fully effective on March 1, 1975 (some of its sections became effective earlier). That act and its 1975 amendments are applicable to the insurance policy in issue in this case. That act is popularly referred to as the "no-fault act." Perhaps not as popularly, that act also provided for compulsory insurance in Georgia in section 3 (Code Ann. § 56-3403b) as follows: "No owner of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this State, or any other person, other than a self-insurer as defined in this Chapter, shall operate or authorize any other person to operate such motor vehicle unless the owner has insurance on such vehicle providing the following minimum coverage: (a) motor vehicle liability insurance equivalent to that required as evidence of security for bodily injury and property damage liability under the motor vehicle safety responsibility laws of this state . . ." (Subsection (b) provides for compulsory no-fault insurance.)
The provision (subsection (a) quoted above) as to "motor vehicle liability insurance equivalent to that required as evidence of security for bodily injury and property damage liability under the motor vehicle safety responsibility laws of this State" refers to our Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, now Code Ann. Title 68C (Ga.L.1977, p. 1014), Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 245 Ga. 558(1), 266 S.E.2d 175 (1980); Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Davis, 145 Ga.App. 147, 148, 243 S.E.2d 531 (1978), formerly Code Ann. Title 92A-6 ( ). Former Code Ann. § 92A-605(c) relieved a person from furnishing the security required by former Code Ann. § 92A-605(a) if the owner or operator of the vehicle had an automobile liability policy on the vehicle involved in an accident in amounts not less than $10,000/$20,000/$5,000 (Ga.L.1957, pp. 124, 125; 1958, p. 694).
Smith applied for and received from Southern Guaranty basic third-party liability insurance ($10,000/$20,000/$5,000) as well as basic personal injury protection benefits (no-fault). Southern Guaranty, an insurance company licensed to do business in this state, urges that the reference in Code Ann. § 56-3403b(a) to "the motor vehicle safety responsibility laws of this State" is so vague, ambiguous and uncertain that it cannot ascertain the law referred to and the minimum coverages required. Although we do not find that to be so, Auto-Owners Ins Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co., supra, we note that the Southern Guaranty policy issued to Smith complied with the minimums set forth in our motor vehicle safety...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Horn v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.
...its right to rescind the policy ... defeats ... the basic policy of the Financial Responsibility Law"); Pearce v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 33, 39, 268 S.E.2d 623, 628 (1980) ("an automobile insurance policy providing basic third party liability insurance and basic personal injury......
-
Harkrider v. Posey
...the statutory provisions. . . ."); Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Clay, 248 Kan. 889, 811 P.2d 1202 (1991); Pearce v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 33, 268 S.E.2d 623 (1980); National Ins. Ass'n v. Peach, 926 S.W.2d 859 (Ky.App.1996) (insurer's right to rescind a policy with regard t......
-
Wilder v. Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York, A01A1410.
...in the mandatory motor vehicle coverage after the occurrence and prior to the cancellation. Although Pearce v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 33, 268 S.E.2d 623 (1980), was decided under the compulsory coverage of no-fault motor vehicle insurance, since repealed, no-fault insurance was......
-
American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Sinkler
...(prohibiting post-accident rescission absent prompt pre-accident investigation of insured's application); Pearce v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 33, 268 S.E.2d 623 (1980) (holding No-Fault Act bars retroactive cancellation after accident); In re Opinion of Justices, 251 Mass. 569, 14......
-
Avoiding Common Pitfalls And Preserving Defenses In The Event Of Application Misrepresentation
...attempt will be ineffective. Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Ferguson, 263 Ga. App. 714, 589 S.E.2d 290 (2003); Pearce v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 33; 268 S.E.2d 623 Refunding Premiums When rescinding a policy, the carrier must return all premiums paid by the insured since the inception of......