Court Opinion

ID: 9587981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:28:32.476218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:25.424248
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
While concurring in the judgment of reversal, what is said in Division One of the majority opinion is well stated and prohibits us from addressing the merits of the case. It is the opinion of the writer that our whole court should consider the retrospective-prospective application and effects of Jones v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co., 156 Ga. App. 230 (274 SE2d 623) (1980), and, further, possibly reconsider *319whether the latter case imposing unique multiple signature requirements in the insurance industry was based on a misconstruction and misinterpretation of Code § 56-3404b (b), and, therefore, whether it should be overruled or be upheld.
I respectfully concur in the judgment only.