Court Opinion

ID: 9568009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:59:53.796406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:15.689718
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
As in Schroeder v. Ga. Farm &c. Ins. Co., 211 Ga. App. 302 (439 SE2d 18) (1993), I concur specially. I do so because it is implied in the policy that the Special Conditions, which are the same and are identically placed in this policy, must be adhered to throughout the life of the policy.
The Special Conditions are articulated in the present tense verb form, indicating that they are the circumstances at that point in time at which the parties enter into the contract and .the policy is issued. The condition here subject was in fact complied with at that time. There was no express warning that coverage depended on the contin*427ued existence of the conditions, nor is there any specific direction to insured that insurer must be notified of any change in one of the conditions so that the policy could be changed. However, the common law does not require such, and the legislature has not imposed such.
Decided November 29, 1993
Reconsideration denied December 15, 1993
Carey, Jarrará & Walker, Christopher J. Walker III, for appellant.
Wesley Williams, for appellee.
Because insurer agreed, in the first sentence of the policy, only to furnish insurance “for the premium and compliance with all applicable provisions of this policy” and the condition of residency is an applicable provision, there was no coverage when the condition ceased to exist in fact. The policy imposes continuing obligations on both parties, for the life of the contract.
I am authorized to state that Judge Cooper joins in this special concurrence.