Insurаnce contracts are governed by the same rules of construction or interpretation, for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties, as apply to other contracts. Code § 56-815;
Golden
v.
National Life & Accident Insurance Co.,
189
Ga.
79 (2), 87 (
Condition 22 of the policy, under the heading of “Cancellation,” is clear and unambiguous. There is no statutory provision in this State which requires that notice of cancellation of an insurance policy must be given in any particular manner. Here each party reserved the right to cancel the policy by mailing a written notice to the other party. As to the insured, he could effect cancellation by mailing a written notice to the сompanies, stating the time when cancellation would be effective. As to the insurers, they could cancel by mailing a written notice to the insured, stating the time, not less than five days thereafter, when cancellation would be effective. It was agreed that the mailing of the notice would constitute sufficient proof of notice, and that the effective date and hour stated in the notice would constitute the end of the policy periоd. The parties made the act of mailing the written notice, *87 and not the actual receipt of the notice, the essential requirement to cancel the policy.
There has been no case before this сourt'involving the question as to whether receipt of the notice must be shown, where the policy under consideration contained a similar provision as to giving notice of cancellation. However, the Court of Appeals, in the case of
Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
v.
C. I. T. Corp.,
55
Ga. App.
101 (
We are of the opinion that the method prescribed in the policy provides a reasonable way to terminate the policy, and that it was unnecessary for the insurers, in proving notice of cancellation, to show, in addition to proof of mailing the written notice in the manner provided in the policy, that the insured actually received the notice. The undisputed facts in the instant case show that the written notice provided for in the policy was mailed by the insurers to the address of the insured as stated in the policy.
The cases relied on by the insured, which hold that, where notice of сancellation is attempted to be effected by mail, there must be proof that the insured received the notice before cancellation can be effected
(Bankers Mutual Casualty Co.
v.
Peo
*88
ples Bank of Talbotton,
127
Ga.
326 (1),
The reported cases are plentiful and conflicting on the question as to whether or not the insurers, in the exercise of the reserved power to cancel a policy of insurance, in the absence of a statutory requirement, can effectively canсel a policy without first paying or tendering payment of the unearned premium. See texts and citation of authorities in 6 Couch on Insurance, § 1436 et seq., and annotation on this subject in 127 A. L. R., 1341. The rulings in these authorities were each dеpendent upon the wording of the cancellation clause in the respective policy under consideration. These rulings may be grouped into five categories: First, where the wording of the policy makes a return of the unearned premium a condition precedent to cancellation; second, where the policy construed was a standard fire policy; third, where the cancellation clause was silent as to rеturn of the unearned premium; fourth, where the provision for return of the unearned premium was ambiguous; and fifth, where the obligation to return the unearned premium was, by the terms of the contract, plainly made a consequence and not a condition of cancellation. The weight of authority is that, if the terms of the cancellation clause fall within any one of the first four groups, a tender or return of the unearned premium is necessary to effect cancellation. The weight of authority as to group 5 is that return or an offer to return the unearned premium is not essential to cancel a policy where the condition as to notice has been cоmplied with.
The case of
Hollingsworth
v.
Germania, Niagara, Hanover & Republic Fire Insurance Co.,
45
Ga.
294 (12 Am. R. 579), falls within the first group. There the policy provided: “The insurance may also be at any time terminated at the option of the companies, on giving notice to that effect, and
refunding a
*89
ratable proportion оf the premium for the unexpired term of the policy.”
It is plainly seen that, in order to effect a cancellation of this policy, there was a dual condition precedent, to wit, giving of a notice
and
refunding the unearned premium. The cases of
Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Co.
v.
Walker,
150
Ga.
163 (2) (
In addition to the cases of Parks
v.
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
The parties having agreed that the unearned premium should be returned after the effective date of the cancellation, failure of the insurers tо return the unearned premium to the insured did not prevent the cancellation in this case from becoming effective.
Counsel for the insured contend that, when the insurers’ agent attached to the notice of cancellation the following: “Note: Any return premium due under this policy, if not tendered herewith, will be refunded upon demand,” they sought to impose a condition to the right of the insured to collect the unearned premium which was not in the policy. We do not agree with this contention. This note appears at the bottom of the notice of cancellation, under the signature of the agent giving the notice, and is a matter of information to the insured of his right to a return of the unearned premium, and limits in no way the right of the insured or obligation of the insurers as to return of the unearned premium.
The court did not err in entering the decree complained of.
Judgment affirmed.