*1 Roy Browning, Tanksley Casurella, Barnes, E. Alston & Barnes, Bird, & Conley Ingram, Graves, III, Daniel F. Judson Ben Johnson G. Gregory, Powell, Rothman, Arnall, Robert L. Kent, & A. Golden Murphy, Rawls, Anderson, & Walker Goldstein, James C. Frazer & Bush, Jr., Reichert, H. amici curiae. Walter et al. S94G1341. TIPPINS BANK & TRUST COMPANY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. SOUTHERN 381) Justice. Hines, Appeals granted de- to consider its We certiorari to the Court of Tippins Bank in Southern Ins. Co. v. &c. cision Gen. determined The Court of required longer under OCGA 33-24-46 insurer that an lapse notify stan- insured lienholder of the residential or a premi- pay failure to fire because of the named insured’s dard legislative in- based assessment of ums. The determination was tent. on an construing glean in is to the intent The cardinal rule a statute 601) Mulkey, legislature. 201, 202 State v. (1984); (1980). Christy, Bd. Trustees v. history telling. legislature legislation of the passed provided: act, an which any policy of in
No which interests by pay- protected loss in the lienholders named may insurer so clause cancelled or nonrenewed able be destroy protection for the said as to afforded possessed by unless notice of such interests the lienholders copy to the or or thereof sent cancellation lienholders nonrenewal provided [Ga. Code] sections manner for 56-2430 and 56-2430.1. p. as OCGA 33-24-47.
Ga. L. This was later 878. codified January amended, to add the The Code was effective pro- predecessor § 56-2430.3, which Ga. Code cancellation insured vided that the insurer send to the policies. L. Ga. or nonrenewal of certain standard fire (b) (3) p. as “failure Code defined “nonrenewal” 56-2430.3 by expressly 2018. Subsection an insurer to renew.” Id. at refusal premium: nonpayment nonrenewal for statute addressed notice is be unless written Nonrenewal shall not effective provided respect nonpayment premium . . . to the pay expiring policy for the or the failure of the insured to renewal, required by either of days such effective shall not than ten case date be less after the date of notice.
Id. at 2018-2019.
Chapter 24 of in 1984. significant Title 33 underwent amendment containing provision notice to the lienholders repealed entirety adopted. in its and a new 33-24-46 was OCGA (b) (1) solely 33-24-46 then defined “nonrenewal” as “a refusal renew,” an insurer ... to and omitted from the definition a “failure” (d) to provided: renew. Subsection “No insurer shall refuse to a renew applies to which this Code section a written unless notice person nonrenewal is mailed or delivered to named insured.” Appeals correctly The repeal Court concluded 33-24-47, OCGA coupled changes with the OCGA 33-24-46 evinced the legislative required intent that an insurer now be (d) pursuant only when the re- reason, is, fuses, for whatever That in- to renew cluding provision, longer its notice included the situation in which nonpayment premium by was not renewed because of insured. legislative requirement intent narrow of the
statute is confirmed addition the statute effective 1995. The amendment added to the definition of or “nonrenewal” (b) (1): “nonrenewed” contained in Failure pay required of an insured to of the insured for renewal after the insurer has manifested a will- ingness by delivering policy, renew a renewal renewal cer- tificate, or other evidence renewal to the named insured or representative his or her has or offered to issue a renewal certificate, policy, or other evidence of or has renewal mani- fested by any such intention other means shall not be con- strued to be nonrenewal.
(Emphasis supplied.) “In construing subsequent statutes acts of the legislature may subject Wingfield on the same be considered.” v. Ku tres, 474) (1911). Indeed, SE the courts not only guided by to be Assembly’s expression the General last on a sub ject, Comm., the latest declaration controls. v. Public Svc. Alford (b) (418 (1992); Bd. Trustees Christy, supra Balkcom, at 555 See Gunn v. also 500) (1972). case, insurer did not of this
Accordingly, the circumstances required under 33-24-46. duty to send notice have reconsideration, rejected On the Court motion whether the insurer statutory provision governing assertion pay the insured fails give notice to a lienholder when must pol- policy lapses at the end policy premium and the rather than OCGA icy period is OCGA 33-24-44 not expiration lapse does con- properly It did so. “[T]he Goodley v. Fund American Fireman’s stitute a cancellation.” Life King See also Co., Ins. (11th 1982). This F2d Cir. com- v. Guardian Life statutory required limit notice to ports apparent scheme to the insurer’s coverage is ended because of those instances own failure unwillingness or refusal to renew rather then insured’s to act. concur, Hunstein, Judgment except All the Justices affirmed.
Carley, JJ., Thompson, who dissent. Justice, dissenting. Carley, (Insured) purchased Dees a standard Tommy J. (In- Company
fire Southern General Insurance from *3 surer). the contents policy The covered Insured’s residence and & Trust one-year Tippins and Bank Com- period thereof for a listed (Lienholder) 1991, payee. May In Insurer mailed a re- pany as a loss him Insured, informing policy expire newal to that 18, premium paid before that on June 1991 unless the renewal was Thereafter, the re- date. sent to the lienholder. No such was and, 5,1991, Insured’s residence paid newal was not payment destroyed by When a and its contents were fire. claim denied, against suit policy under Lienholder filed Insured and summary in favor of In- granted judgment Insurer. The trial court Lienholder, Appeals Southern sured and but the Court of reversed. (444 Co., &c. SE2d Tippins App. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Bank 213 Ga. 176 331) (1994). holding of granted We certiorari in order to review the that Appeals majority of this Court affirms hold- Court of Ap- ing. my opinion, court the Court the trial was correct and peals I dissent. Accordingly, respectfully erred. must policy differs from the “non-
The “cancellation” of an insurance Co., Ins. Goodley thereof. v. Fireman’s Fund American renewal” Life 7) (1985); v. Southland App. 173 Ga. 277 SE2d Robertson Life Co., (3) Ins. Ga. 808 SE2d OCGA App. policies in general. 33-24-44 OCGA deals the “cancellation” § and the specifically the “cancellation” 33-24-46 addresses both policies, while OCGA property “nonrenewal” certain “nonrenewal” of specifically addresses “cancellation” and policies. requirement automobile a There can be no “cancellation” as previous policy subject which has been “nonrenewal.” supra; provides Goodley, supra. Robertson, at issue here property contemplated OCGA 33-24-46. Accord- ingly, whether, resolution the first issue for under 33-24- coverage a June there was “nonrenewal” Insured’s so that expired as of (d) provides, part, “[n]o in-
OCGA 33-24-46 in relevant policy . surer nonrenewal is mailed or delivered in The error that and the refuse to . . shall renew unless a written notice
person
to the named insured.”
perceive
holdings
I
in the
of both
Court of
given
majority
language
relates to
construction
language,
that,
I would hold
under this
it
upon
incumbent
and an
insurer
effectuate nonrenewal
give
requisite
re-
insurer’s failure to
notice of nonrenewal
sults
the automatic renewal
See Bank
Toccoa v. Cotton
thereof.
(2) (439
60) (1993)
App.
States Mut. Ins.
and Ga.
426) (1988)
App.
Mims,
Mut.
Co. v.
(e)
(construing
language
the identical
of OCGA 33-24-45
(1)).
Unigard
Compare
Fox,
Mut. Ins. Co. v.
(decided
(1977)
33-24-46)).
enactment OCGA
language
If this
mandates
automatic renewal of automobile insur-
give
ance for failure of
OCGA
notice of nonrenewal under
(e) (1),
language
then
the identical
of OCGA 33-
(d)
property
24-46 mandates an
automatic renewal
insurance under
that same
Statutes
not to
circumstance.
are
be construed
a vac-
part,
they
uum,
relation to other statutes which
and all
relating
subject
statutes
to the same
matter are to be construed to-
gether,
possible.
Express
and harmonized wherever
East
West
Col-
599) undisputed
lins,
It is
provide any
Insurer did not
notice of its refusal to renew Insured’s
contrary,
affirmatively gave
To the
Insurer
notice of its intent
policy. Accordingly,
applies
here,
renew
if
automatically
Insured’s
was renewed
as the
result of
Insurer’s failure
notice of nonrenewal.
regard
pro-
insurance,
With
to automobile
the automatic renewal
*4
(e)
apply
§
vision of OCGA 33-24-45
does
in
not
certain enumerated
including
instances,
the case wherein the insurer
its
has “manifested
(f)
willingness
§
Thus,
to renew” the
if
giving
insurance,
case involved automobile
the insurer’s
of notice
policy
finding
preclude
of its
intent
renew the
of automatic
give
renewal based on the failure of the insurer to
notice of nonre-
Progressive
Brown,
newal.
v.
Ins. Co.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hunstein and Justice join Thompson in this dissent. —
Decided December 1995. denied December Reconsideration Franklin, Taulbee, Rushing, Brogdon, Brogdon, Bunce & W. M. Jr., appellants. for Childs, Groover, Jr., Newton, Smith,
Groover & Denmark Dur- den, Rice, Wilson, Smith, & R. appellee. for Kaufold Norman, Long, Huie, Aldridge & W. Stell amicus curiae.
S95A1453. TRICE THE STATE. THE
S95A1454. HEAD v. STATE. Justice. Carley, Appellants Stephen William jointly Trice and Head were tried jury. before guilty Trice was found of malice murder and armed robbery, guilty felony Head was found murder while in the com- mission robbery, armed and were guilty burglary, both found aggravated possession battery, a firearm while the commission of crime, possession and firearm convicted felon. The trial court judgments entered of conviction and jury’s sentences on the guilty verdicts, including sentences of life imprisonment on mur- Thereafter, der separate and, counts. motions for trial new were filed when denied, separate those motions were appeal notices of were filed.1 The appeals two disposition for single consolidated in this opinion.
1. The produced State showing evidence that Trice and Head The crimes on occurred November and indictment was returned on Feb ruary 9, guilty judgments 1994. The verdicts were returned March on and the April 11, conviction and were on sentences entered 1994. Trice’s motion for new trial was 14,1994, April 20,1994 April filed on Head’s motion new trial was filed on and amended April 7,1995, May 18,1995. appeal and both motions were denied on Head’s May May filed on followed Trice’s 1995. The cases were docketed Court on were submitted for decision on