Preferred Insurance v. Bentley

Supreme Court of Georgia

Preferred Insurance v. Bentley

157 S.E.2d 737, 223 Ga. 735, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 678

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 20, 1967

Docket24336

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.E.2d 737 (Preferred Insurance v. Bentley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Preferred Insurance v. Bentley, 157 S.E.2d 737, 223 Ga. 735, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 678 (Ga. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Grice, Justice.

We must affirm the trial court’s judgment that the deposits made with this state by a Michigan insurance company, now in receivership, be held for the benefit of all Georgia claimants, and the balance of such deposits, if any, after all such claims have been liquidated, be paid to the domiciliary receiver.

The only provision in Georgia law for transferring deposits made with this state by a foreign insurance company to the domiciliary receiver of the company is in the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 509 et seq., Ch. 56-14; Code Ann. Ch. 56-14), and there was no evidence that Michigan is a reciprocal state and therefore entitled to the benefit of that Act. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the deposits were of the types required to be administered under Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 493, Ch. 56-11 (Code Ann. Ch. 56-11), rather than under Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 318 (Code Ann. § 56-310) or under general equitable principles.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Vandiver, Barwick & Bentley, John E. Talmadge, Edward J. Stoddard, M. Cook Barwick, for appellant. Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford & Irvin, Henry M. Hatcher, Jr., Poole, Pearce •& Cooper, Walter G. Cooper, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey &, Regenstein, W. G. Vance, Claude M. Hicks, A. R. Barksdale, Coy Johnson, for appellees.

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

Grice, Justice.

We must affirm the trial court’s judgment that the deposits made with this state by a Michigan insurance company, now in receivership, be held for the benefit of all Georgia claimants, and the balance of such deposits, if any, after all such claims have been liquidated, be paid to the domiciliary receiver.

The only provision in Georgia law for transferring deposits made with this state by a foreign insurance company to the domiciliary receiver of the company is in the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 509 et seq., Ch. 56-14; Code Ann. Ch. 56-14), and there was no evidence that Michigan is a reciprocal state and therefore entitled to the benefit of that Act. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the deposits were of the types required to be administered under Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 493, Ch. 56-11 (Code Ann. Ch. 56-11), rather than under Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 318 (Code Ann. § 56-310) or under general equitable principles.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Vandiver, Barwick & Bentley, John E. Talmadge, Edward J. Stoddard, M. Cook Barwick, for appellant. Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford & Irvin, Henry M. Hatcher, Jr., Poole, Pearce •& Cooper, Walter G. Cooper, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey &, Regenstein, W. G. Vance, Claude M. Hicks, A. R. Barksdale, Coy Johnson, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E.2d 737, 223 Ga. 735, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preferred-insurance-v-bentley-ga-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack