Court Opinion

ID: 9586945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:16:46.579161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:57.204751
License: Public Domain

Hill, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
While I disagree with the Court of Appeals’ holding that this case falls under paragraph (c) of OCGA § 33-34-5 (Code Ann. § 56-3404b), rather than under paragraph (b), I concur in the dismissal of certiorari because, in my view, the result reached by the Court of Appeals (affirmance of the trial court) is correct.
First, I must disagree with the Court of Appeals’ holding. Our “no-fault” act, OCGA § 33-34-1 et seq. (Code Ann. § 56-3401b et seq.), became effective on March 1,1975. OCGA § 33-34-5(b) (Code Ann. § 56-3404b) is applicable to applications for policies of motor vehicle liability insurance. OCGA § 33-34-5(c) (Code Ann. § 56-3404b), which was added by amendment prior to the effective date of the act, is applicable to such policies as were in effect on March 1, 1975. Mrs. Nalley’s policy was not issued until November, 1976. Therefore, in my view, subparagraph (c) is not applicable and subparagraph (b) is.1
Nevertheless, I agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals. In construing OCGA § 33-34-5(b) (Code Ann. § 56-3404b) in Flewellen v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 250 Ga. 709, 711 (300 SE2d 673) (1983), we held “... that the requirements of subsection (b) are satisfied by two signatures, one for acceptance or rejection of optional PIP and another to indicate acceptance or rejection of vehicle damage coverage.” (Emphasis supplied.)2 While in deciding Flewellen, we held that two signatures satisfied the statutory requirements, we did not hold that two signatures were mandatory in every case.
*724Attached hereto is a copy of the application signed by Mrs. Nalley. Mrs. Nalley’s choice of basic PIP coverage ($5000) is clearly indicated by an “X” in a box.3 While the optional coverage application has only one signature, that signature was made in conjunction with a “STATEMENT OF REJECTION BY NAMED INSURED: I reject all Optional Coverages not requested and completed on application for Family Automobile Insurance Coverages and Supplemental Application for Personal Injury Protection coverages.” (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear from the form that the intent of the insured was to reject optional PIP benefits. Thus, in my view, the form is in substantial compliance with the statutory requirement, OCGA § l-3-l(c) (Code Ann. § 102-102), and satisfies the intent of the General Assembly to ensure “ ‘that insurers offer optional coverages to applicants for no-fault insurance and that an applicant’s waiver of his privilege to obtain optional coverages be made knowingly and in writing.’ ” Flewellen, supra, 250 Ga. at 714.
The insured clearly rejected optional PIP benefits and a claim for such benefits should not now be entertained. While I believe this court should have decided this case based upon the reasons stated above,4 I concur in the dismissal of the writ.
I am authorized to state that Justice Weltner joins in this special concurrence.
[[Image here]]
*725[[Image here]]

 Although the Court of Appeals decision to the contrary is adopted one possible construction of OCGA § 33-34-5 (c) (Code Ann. § 56-3404b), in view of its legislative history, I am unable to agree with that construction. The “no-fault” act as originally enacted applied only to applications. Ga. L. 1974, p. 113, § 4. So as to apply to existing policies as well as new ones, the act was amended to cover policies already issued. Ga. L. 1975, p. 3, § 1. See Wiard v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 251 Ga. 698 (310 SE2d 221) (1983), and Justice Smith’s dissent in this case, infra.

 The application form in Flewellen, supra, had only one signature. Although the reproduction of that application found at 164 Ga. App. 893 shows the signature to be on the optional coverage page, that is the last page of the application and the signature is actually at the bottom of the application itself. The same is also true of the applications in Jones v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 156 Ga. App. 230 (274 SE2d 623) (1980), see 164 Ga. App. 895; Colwell v. Voyager Cas. Ins. Co., 251 Ga. 744 (309 SE2d 617) (1983); and Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. McFather, 251 Ga. 739 (309 SE2d 799) (1984). Compare the form in Van Dyke v. Allstate Ins. Co., 250 Ga. 709 (300 SE2d 673) (1983), found at 164 Ga. App. 894.

 There is no issue in this case regarding the adequacy of the form as to property damage.

 Our grant of certiorari in this case was not specifically directed to the substantial compliance issue and we have a case pending, St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Nixon, Case No. 39850, which expressly raises that issue.