Court Opinion

ID: 9586396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:10:05.187256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:00.613771
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I concur in Division 2 (Case No. A96A0597) but not in Division 1 (Case No. A96A0596). It is obvious in this case that plenty of notice was given and that the applicant for insurance knew what she was signing. The explanation itself is express to an extent, and the applicant’s name is carefully subscribed on the two lines provided for it. The nature of her signature gives the appearance of deliberateness.
The options are clearly and simply presented in orderly columns, with space between so they are not lost in close writing. The box gives added emphasis to the fact that this portion of the application *311is unique and exclusively for Georgia residents. In bold face are certain important statements, each set off from the others, that this is an offer, that Georgia law requires it, that the applicant must make a written choice about each option, that they have been explained to her, and what the abbreviations mean for the coverages she must accept or reject.
Although this form was signed in 1988, no case in these intervening years has held that it is deficient for failing to meet the mandates of OCGA § 33-34-5 (b), as the majority noted, before that Code section was changed in 1991. The conclusion is inescapable from a reading of the questioned portion of the document that it “contain[s] a statement in boldface type signed by the applicant indicating that the optional coverages listed in [the] Code section have been explained to the applicant.” OCGA § 33-34-5 (b) (1990 ed.). The three parts of this requirement, as identified by the Supreme Court in Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Goddard, 259 Ga. 257, 258 (379 SE2d 778) (1989), were satisfied. The “bright line” was followed.
The fact that the insurer deemed it wise, to assure applicant’s attention and understanding, to highlight several other short statements as well does not diminish or detract or neutralize the boldness of the required statement. It stands out by itself, with space between it and all the other print, most of which is not bold. It is conspicuous, in the word used by the Supreme Court in Goddard; it is not an obtuse statement, buried in a “confusing maze” written in insurance industry jargon with abbreviations listing 29 types of coverage making 87 options available, as was the application presented to Goddard. In fact, the insurer went so far as to capitalize the first letter of each word in the assurance, giving it even more emphasis than the Code requires. The applicant’s signature is only one sentence removed from this law-required statement, strengthening the memorialization of the acknowledgment that the insurer fulfilled its obligation to explain. The other boldfacing merely gives context to the statement of assurance, fleshing out its bare bones.
Applying the “common sense” approach taken by the Supreme Court in Goddard leads to the conclusion that “the plain-talking statute” was complied with in this case. Its purpose was met, as it is clear from the insurance application that Freeman confirmed that the coverage which she knew would cost an additional premium was explained to her and rejected by her. That being so, she has no claim for additional coverage, and the trial court erred in denying summary judgment to defendant on this issue.
I am authorized to state that Judge Andrews and Judge Smith join in this dissent.
*312[[Image here]]
*313Decided June 25, 1996
Reconsideration denied July 12, 1996
McLain & Merritt, William S. Sutton, for appellant.
B. Samuel Engram, Jr., for appellee.