Schwartz v. Black
Decision Date | 16 July 1991 |
Docket Number | No. A91A0430,A91A0430 |
Citation | 200 Ga.App. 735,409 S.E.2d 681 |
Parties | SCHWARTZ, et al. v. BLACK, et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William Q. Bird, P.C., William Q. Bird, Edward R. Still, Atlanta, for appellants.
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James T. McDonald, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees.
The sole issue presented for resolution in the instant appeal concerns a policy of automobile insurance issued pursuant to the Georgia Automobile Insurance Plan (Plan). The trial court held that a policy issued pursuant to the Plan can provide a maximum bodily injury liability limit of $100,000 per person. It is from that order that the instant appeal is taken.
It is generally true that " MAG Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gatewood, 186 Ga.App. 169, 173(1), 367 S.E.2d 63 (1988). However, Employers Commercial Union Cos. v. Waldrop, 124 Ga.App. 746, 749(2), 186 S.E.2d 134 (1971). "Accordingly, if there be any conflict in [general contract and insurance law] and the specific requirements of the assigned risk plan, the latter requirements are controlling as to an application under the assigned risk plan and a policy of liability insurance issued pursuant thereto." State Farm, etc., Ins. Co. v. Reese, 116 Ga.App. 59, 60(1), 156 S.E.2d 529 (1967). Rondale Bus Svc. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, 189 ga.app. 869, 871(1), 377 S.E.2d 726 (1989). Accordingly, the first issue to be resolved is whether the Plan specifies a maximum bodily injury liability limit of only $100,000 per person, for, if it does, then that maximum limit as specified in the Plan is controlling.
Panfel v. Boyd, 187 Ga.App. 639, 643(2b), 371 S.E.2d 222 (1988). "Accordingly, [in construing the administrative rules and regulations implementing the Plan] we may look to various rules of statutory interpretation...." Cross v. Balkcom, 102 Ga.App. 81, 83, 115 S.E.2d 783 (1960), rev'd on other grounds, 216 Ga. 530, 118 S.E.2d 185 (1961). See also American Med. Intl. v. Charter Lake Hosp., 186 Ga.App. 204, 207(2), 366 S.E.2d 795 (1988). Among those rules of statutory construction is the following: " 'Where a particular expression in one part of a statute is not so extensive or large in its import as other expressions in the same statute, it must yield to the larger and more extensive expression, where the latter embodies the real intent of the legislature ...' [Cit.]" Board of Trustees, etc., of Atlanta v. Christy, 246 Ga. 553, 555(1), 272 S.E.2d 288 (1980). Another rule of statutory construction is that which provides that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ARCO Design/Build, LLC v. Savannah Green I Owner, LLC.
...Orders as the Chief Justice's authority to issue them is derived from statute. See OCGA § 38-3-60 et seq. ; cf. Schwartz v. Black , 200 Ga. App. 735, 736, 409 S.E.2d 681 (1991) (where administrative agency's authority to adopt rules and regulations is derived from statute, rules of statutor......
-
Walker v. Department of Transportation
...construction and look to the plain meaning of the regulation to determine its meaning. Pfeiffer v. Dept. of Transp.15 See also Schwartz v. Black.16 Moreover, we must defer to an agency's interpretation and enforcement of its own rules. Dept. of Community Health v. Satilla Health Here, in th......
-
Georgia Dept. of Transp. v. Brown
...comprehensive sense would also include matters addressed in the specific, the particular provision must control. Schwartz v. Black, 200 Ga.App. 735, 736, 409 S.E.2d 681 (1991). The statute at issue in this case includes a highway design exception which applies to "plan or design for constru......
-
Lee v. American Central Ins. Co., A00A0728.
...v. American Central Ins. Co., supra. Insurance is a matter of contract and is controlled by general contract law. Schwartz v. Black, 200 Ga.App. 735, 409 S.E.2d 681 (1991). [T]he language used is to be accorded its general and ordinary meaning, bearing in mind that the contract is to be con......