Court Opinion

ID: 9560084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:42:42.202285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:05.372513
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason. The insurer’s initial failure to comply with the written rejection requirements of OCGA § 33-34-5 (b) is undisputed in this case. Under Flewellen v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 250 Ga. 709 (300 SE2d 673) (1983), the policy issued to the appellant thus provided for $50,000 PIP from its inception.
The injury in this case occurred on August 8, 1981. Even assuming that the appellant’s husband had authority to reject the optional coverages in his wife’s policy, that rejection did not occur until September 18, 1981. In short, at the time of the injury, the policy in question as a matter of law provided for $50,000 PIP benefits. As the appellant policyholder demanded the increased coverage for a time period before any rejection of the optional coverages had been effected, and submitted proof of loss by the injured party, the appellee was liable for the claim. GEICO v. Mooney, 250 Ga. 760 (300 SE2d *821799) (1983); Bailey v. Ga. Mut. Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 706 (309 SE2d 870) (1983).