stating, in regard to another provision of the insurance code, that “when an insurer issues a policy with provisions not in compliance with the law the contract will not be rendered void but the provisions of the statute will be grafted into the policy”
How later courts described this case
- stating, in regard to another provision of the insurance code, that “when an insurer issues a policy with provisions not in compliance with the law the contract will not be rendered void but the provisions of the statute will be grafted into the policy”
- adopting the three-prong retroactivity test set forth in Chevron Oil v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (92 SC 349, 30 LE2d 296) (1971)
- same under O.C.G.A. § 33-34-5(b)
- “[W]hen an insurer issues a policy with provisions not in compliance with the law[,] the contract will not be rendered void[,] but the provisions of the statute will be grafted into the policy.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by Mullins v. First General Insurance, 253 Ga. 486 (1984)
We reject this argument because Flewellen merely created a remedy for a violation of OCGA § 33-34-5, not an implied substantive contractual right.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Hardy v. Nationwide Insurance, 182 Ga. App. 311 (1987)
To the extent they are based upon the statute prior to its 1982 amendment, the holdings in Jones and Flewellen and their progeny are inapposite to the case at bar.
Distinguished by Federated Mutual Insurance v. Pate, 254 Ga. 361 (1985)
Flewellen is inapplicable, and the Court of Appeals should have affirmed the grant of the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment.
Distinguished by Hawkins v. Travelers Insurance, 166 Ga. App. 619 (1983)
Co., 250 Ga. 709 (300 SE2d 673) (1983) are also inapplicable.
The opinion
*718 Marshall, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals. Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Flewellen, 164 Ga. App. 885 ( 300 SE2d 166 ) (1982).