Court Opinion

ID: 9850366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:56:13.839555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:35.950030
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
When this case was previously before the court, it was held: “The remaining question is whether Kovacs’ request for cancellation of the Pennsylvania Millers' policy effectively canceled it as to the mortgagee, Douglas County Federal. If not, then Pennsylvania Millers’ policy was in force as to the mortgagee, and proration of the loss to the extent of the indebtedness (up to $10,000, the stipulated amount of the loss) would be in order.” Employers’ Fire Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Millers, 116 Ga. App. 433, 435 (157 SE2d 807). The court found that: “Since an independent contract of insurance engrafted upon the main insurance contract existed for the benefit of the mortgagee, Douglas County Federal, the unilateral act of Kovacs in requesting a cancellation of the policy without its consent and without written notice as provided for by various other' policy provisions could not effect cancellation of Pennsylvania Millers' policy as to the mortgagee.” Employers’ Fire Ins. v. Pennsylvania Millers &c. Co., 116 Ga. App. 433, 437, supra.
In support of the position this court noted that the Insurance Code (Code Ann. §§ 56-2430 (Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 671; 1967, p. 653) and 56-2430.1 (Ga. L. 1964, p. 335)) requires written notice to effect the cancellation of a policy which protects the interest of the lienholder.
It is thus apparent that the question of the application of *660the cited Code section was determined adversely to the contentions of movant in the prior decision of this case.

Rehearing denied.