On March 14, 1984, appellee Carter Gaydon obtained an insurance policy from appellant Leader National Insurance Company, financing his policy through a premium finance company, Siuprem, Inc. On May 19, 1984, Siuprem, Inc. cancelled the policy as the result of appellee’s failure to pay the premium. In so doing, Siuprem, Inc. utilized the provisions of former OCGA § 33-22-13 (Ga. L. 1969, pp. 561, 568).
*323 As the result of an incident which occurred on September 1, 1984, a personal injury action was filed against appellee. Appellee then filed this third-party action against appellant, alleging that there had been no effective cancellation of his insurance policy. Appellee and appellant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee and denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Although the evidence of record showed that Siuprem, Inc. had acted to cancel appellee’s policy pursuant to and in full compliance with former OCGA § 33-22-13, the trial court held that the effective cancellation of appellee’s policy would also have required compliance on the part of appellant with the notification provisions of former OCGA § 33-24-44 (Ga. L. 1975, p. 1242). Since appellant had failed to comply with that provision, the trial court found that there had been no effective cancellation of appellee’s policy.
Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), appellant filed a direct.appeal from the grant of summary judgment to appellee. Although appellant’s separate application to this court for an interlocutory appeal from the denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment was superfluous (see
Southeast Ceramics v. Klem,
1. As previously indicated, only Siuprem, Inc. acted to cancel appellee’s policy. Premium finance companies, such as Siuprem, Inc., are not in the business of insurance. However, it has been recognized that their role forms an “ ‘integral part of the insured-insurer relationship.’ [Cit.]”
Perry & Co. v. New South Ins. Brokers,
However, appellee urges and the trial court found that the cancellation of the policy was ineffective because there had not been additional compliance on the part of appellant with former OCGA § 33-24-44. That statute provided, in relevant part, that an insurer was to give written notice hot less than 10 days prior to the cancellation of a policy “for failure of the named insured to discharge when due any of his obligations in connection with the payment of premiums for the policy or any installment of premiums, whether payable directly to the insurer or indirectly under any premium finance plan or extension of credit. . . .” Former OCGA § 33-24-44 (e). However, subsection (a) of former OCGA § 33-24-44 provided: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, cancellation of a policy which by its terms and conditions may be canceled by the insurer shall be accomplished as prescribed in this Code section.” (Emphasis supplied.) Appellee’s policy was, of course, not cancelled by appellant, but by Siuprem, Inc., acting in appellee’s name pursuant to the power of attorney. Thus, we must decide if compliance by appellant with former OCGA § 33-24-44 (e) was required even though it had not initiated the cancellation of appellee’s policy.
The requirements of former OCGA § 33-24-44 “were designed to place upon the insurer the responsibility of taking adequate steps to do all within its power to make certain [its] insured was placed on notice that [his] insurance coverage had been cancelled.”
Favati v. Nat. Property &c. Ins. Co.,
Under the trial court’s interpretation of the former statutory provisions, before any cancellation initiated by a premium finance company could become effective, a defaulting insured would be entitled to notice from the premium finance company pursuant to OCGA § 33-22-13 that he had 10 days within which to cure the default, a notice pursuant to the same Code section that the policy had been cancelled, and an additional 10-days’ notice from the insurer pursuant to former OCGA § 33-24-44 (e). It is clear that compliance by the premium finance company with former OCGA § 33-22-13 would obviate any necessity for the insurer’s compliance with former OCGA § 33-24-44 (e). Pursuant to former OCGA § 33-22-13, the premium finance company was authorized to give the defaulting insured 10-days’ notice prior to cancellation of his policy for failure to pay premiums. If the defaulting insured did not then cure his default after such notice had been sent, the premium financing company was then authorized, in the name of the insured himself, to cancel the policy and “the insurance contract shall be canceled as if the notice of cancellation had been submitted by the insured himself. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Former OCGA § 33-22-13 (c). It would be illogical to require that an insurer in receipt of an authorized notice of cancellation in the name of the insured himself also give 10-days’ notice to that insured that the insurer proposed to cancel his policy.
Former OCGA § 33-22-13 simply provided a method by which cancellation of an insurance policy could,
in effect,
be initiated on behalf of an insured, which method was intended to be an alternative to the insurer’s initiation of cancellation of the policy on its behalf pursuant to former OCGA § 33-24-44. “ ‘[I]t is well established that a policy of insurance may be cancelled at any time before loss, by an agreement between the parties, and that such cancellation may be by the consent of the parties, express or implied from the circumstances, independently of the terms of the policy.’ [Cit.] This is the rule in Georgia. . . .”
Davidson v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co.,
Reliance by appellee and by the trial court upon
Balboa Ins. Co. v. Hunter,
Existing
OCGA § 33-24-44 (e) now provides, in part, as follows: “Notice to the insured shall not be required by this Code section when a policy is canceled by an insurance premium finance company under a power of attorney contained in an insurance premium finance agreement which has been filed with the insurer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22 of this title.” From the fact that the existing statute now specifically negates any requirement of such duplicative notice as was urged by appellee, it does not necessarily follow that such notice was an affirmative element of the former statutory
*327
provision. “ ‘From the addition of words it may be presumed that the legislature intended some change in the existing law; but it is also presumed that the legislature did not intend to effect a greater change than is clearly apparent either by express declaration or by necessary implication. [Cit.]’ [Cit.]”
C. W. Matthews Contracting Co. v. Capital Ford Truck Sales,
It is clear that appellee’s policy of insurance was effectively can-celled by the premium finance company for his nonpayment of premiums pursuant to former OCGA § 33-22-13. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee and in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment.
2. Our holding in Division 1 of this opinion addresses the applicability of former OCGA § 33-24-44 because the parties and the trial court in this case relied exclusively upon that provision. However, all that we have held would likewise be applicable had reliance been upon the provisions of .former OCGA § 33-24-45.
Judgments reversed.