Holcomb v. Southern Guarantee Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holcomb v. Southern Guarantee Insurance

240 S.E.2d 128, 143 Ga. App. 788, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2503

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 12, 1977

Docket54051

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 240 S.E.2d 128 (Holcomb v. Southern Guarantee Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holcomb v. Southern Guarantee Insurance, 240 S.E.2d 128, 143 Ga. App. 788, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2503 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

Smith, Judge.

The appellant Holcomb, claimant in a workmen’s compensation proceeding, received an award against his employer, Raider Service Company, but Raider’s workmen’s compensation insurance carrier, Southern Guarantee Insurance Company, was released from liability on the grounds that the policy had been canceled. The terms of the award were affirmed by the board of workmen’s compensation and then by the superior court. The appellant contends — and we agree — that the administrative law judge made an error of law in concluding that the insurance policy had been cancelled. The judgment is reversed.

To cancel a policy of workmen’s compensation insurance, the insurer must comply with two notice provisions: Code § 56-2430 as to the insured, and Rule 600 of the board of workmen’s compensation as to the board. We find that notice to the insured did not meet the plainly stated requirements of Code § 56-2430, thus the policy was never canceled. The requirement relevant here is delivery of: "Written notice, stating the time when the cancellation will be effective, but not less than [15] days [789]*789from date of notice ... or such other specific longer period as may be provided in the contract or by statute.” The uncontradicted evidence shows the notice was dated July 24, 1975, and it stated the cancellation date was to be August 4, 1975, or eleven days following the date of notice. The decisions dealing with the notice requirement of Code § 56-2430 have mandated strict compliance with its terms, and failure to fulfill those terms results in non-cancellation of the policy. See, e.g., Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 140 Ga. App. 242 (230 SE2d 491); Motors Ins. Corp. v. Roper, 136 Ga. App. 224 (221 SE2d 55); and Republic Ins. Co. v. Cook, 129 Ga. App. 833 (201 SE2d 668). The superior court erred in affirming the finding that the insurance policy had been canceled.

Argued May 23, 1977 Decided October 12, 1977 Rehearing denied November 9, 1977 Greene & Greene, James E. Greene, for appellant. Saveli, Williams, Cox & Angel, Lawson A. Cox, II, for appellees.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., concurs. McMurray, J., concurs specially.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith, Judge.

The appellant Holcomb, claimant in a workmen’s compensation proceeding, received an award against his employer, Raider Service Company, but Raider’s workmen’s compensation insurance carrier, Southern Guarantee Insurance Company, was released from liability on the grounds that the policy had been canceled. The terms of the award were affirmed by the board of workmen’s compensation and then by the superior court. The appellant contends — and we agree — that the administrative law judge made an error of law in concluding that the insurance policy had been cancelled. The judgment is reversed.

To cancel a policy of workmen’s compensation insurance, the insurer must comply with two notice provisions: Code § 56-2430 as to the insured, and Rule 600 of the board of workmen’s compensation as to the board. We find that notice to the insured did not meet the plainly stated requirements of Code § 56-2430, thus the policy was never canceled. The requirement relevant here is delivery of: "Written notice, stating the time when the cancellation will be effective, but not less than [15] days [789]*789from date of notice ... or such other specific longer period as may be provided in the contract or by statute.” The uncontradicted evidence shows the notice was dated July 24, 1975, and it stated the cancellation date was to be August 4, 1975, or eleven days following the date of notice. The decisions dealing with the notice requirement of Code § 56-2430 have mandated strict compliance with its terms, and failure to fulfill those terms results in non-cancellation of the policy. See, e.g., Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 140 Ga. App. 242 (230 SE2d 491); Motors Ins. Corp. v. Roper, 136 Ga. App. 224 (221 SE2d 55); and Republic Ins. Co. v. Cook, 129 Ga. App. 833 (201 SE2d 668). The superior court erred in affirming the finding that the insurance policy had been canceled.

Argued May 23, 1977 Decided October 12, 1977 Rehearing denied November 9, 1977 Greene & Greene, James E. Greene, for appellant. Saveli, Williams, Cox & Angel, Lawson A. Cox, II, for appellees.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., concurs. McMurray, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 S.E.2d 128, 143 Ga. App. 788, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcomb-v-southern-guarantee-insurance-gactapp-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack