Wood v. New York Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 04 December 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 42341,42341 |
Citation | 336 S.E.2d 806,255 Ga. 300 |
Parties | WOOD v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Richard P. Decker, Robert A. Moss, Decker, Cooper & Hallman, Atlanta, Ross J. Wood, et al.
H. Sanders Carter, Jr., Thomas E. Magill, Carter, Ansley, Smith & McLendon, Douglas N. Campbell, Laura S. Conrad, Mitchell, Loggins, Campbell & Elsberry, Atlanta, New York Life Ins. Co., et al.
This case comes before us upon questions certified by the United States Court of Appeals, 758 F.2d 1459, for the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to Rule 36 of the Supreme Court of Georgia. See OCGA § 15-2-9. The following statement of facts and certified questions were submitted to us by the circuit court.
1. "Whether the policies issued by New York Life Insurance Company, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Delaware American International Life Insurance Company on the life of Kristofer L. Wood are 'contract[s] of group life insurance' within the meaning of [OCGA] § 33-24-6(a) and thus excepted from the requirement that the insured either sign the application for insurance or consent in writing to its issuance?"
2. "Whether the two year time limit imposed by the policies' incontestability clauses in compliance with [OCGA] § 33-27-3(a)(2) bars the insurance companies from now raising the defense that Kristofer neither signed the applications for insurance nor consented in writing to their issuance?"
1. Before answering the first certified question regarding OCGA § 33-24-6(a), 1 we undertake to examine the arrangements established to obtain insurance from the insurance companies. For our purposes, an examination of one such arrangement will suffice.
On June 25, 1964, New York Life issued Group Policy No. G-9400 to the Trustee of Engineering Associations Insurance Trust (hereinafter the Trust), as policyholder. By virtue of the issuance of the group policy, the Trust granted to New York Life the right to offer members of certain organizations participating in the trust the opportunity to apply for life insurance coverage. Such organizations included the American Academy of Political and Social Science and the Operations Research Society of America. All applicants were required to submit evidence of insurability satisfactory to New York Life, and all such applications were considered by New York Life and accepted or rejected on an individual basis in accordance with company underwriting standards. After approving an applicant, New York Life would then issue the applicant a certificate of insurance in an agreed upon amount.
Having given this background information we turn to the question of whether the policies issued by the insurance companies fall with the purview of OCGA § 33-24-6(a), so as to be subject to the requirement that the insured sign the application for insurance or consent in writing to its issuance. In the Connecticut General case the district court, Chief Judge Charles A. Moye, Jr., thoroughly reviewed the issue and concluded that the policy, for purposes of OCGA § 33-34-6(a), was not a group policy and that it was therefore subject to the requirements of OCGA § 33-24-6(a). In the New York Life and Delaware American cases, it relied on its reasoning in the Connecticut General case to reach the same result. As we are in complete agreement with the district court's treatment of this issue, we quote in relevant part from its order in the Connecticut General case:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pottayil v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp.
...that never became effective due to the failure of a condition precedent to coverage." Id., at *9 (citing Wood v. New York Life Ins. Co., 255 Ga. 300, 336 S.E.2d 806, 808 (1985) ).We decline to follow Van Loo for several reasons. First, the court incorrectly applied Wood to support its concl......
-
Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Franks
...insurable interest was intended to prevent wagering on human lives.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Wood v. New York Life Insurance Co., 255 Ga. 300, 303, 336 S.E.2d 806 (1985).7 The concept was soon expanded to property insurance. See OCGA § 33–24–4(b) (“No insurance contract on prope......
-
Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Receconi
...is intended for the protection of the insured. Jackson invokes Wren (along with certain Georgia cases, Wood v. New York Life Ins. Co., 255 Ga. 300, 336 S.E.2d 806 (Ga.1985), and Time Ins. Co. v. Lamar, 195 Ga.App. 452, 393 S.E.2d 734 (1990)) and a federal case interpreting Utah law, Alleman......
-
Bishop v. State
...of the request sets forth, in a somewhat argumentative fashion, the public policy reasons enunciated in Wood v. New York Life Ins. Co., 255 Ga. 300, 303-304, 336 S.E.2d 806 (1985), as support for the statutory requirement that an insurance company notify the insured of the issuance of a pol......