" Id. Georgia courts have noted, however, "that because of the potential for conflict of interest, in dealing with retrospective premium policies, a duty is imposed upon the insurer to act reasonably and in good faith." Benton Exp., Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 217 Ga. App. 331, 333 (1995) (emphasis added); see also Home Ins. Co. v. Sunrise Carpet Indus., Inc., 229 Ga. App. 268, 271 (1997) (quoting Benton and noting same duty with respect to retrospective premium policies). In Benton, the plaintiff brought a breach of fiduciary duty claim seeking a declaration of its liability for additional premiums owed under a retrospective premium insurance policy.

Cf.Argonaut, 1996 WL 433564 at *4. The court also finds persuasive the standards annunciated in one of the cases cited by Latrobe, Benton Express, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Amer., 457 S.E.2d 566 (Ga.App. 1995) ( cert. denied, Sept. 5, 1995). See Latrobe's Findings Conclusions at 103, ¶ 2 (citing same in connection with Marty's Express).

Because Hobbs has failed to rebut Western Surety's evidence of good faith, the probate court did not err in granting summary judgment to Western Surety.Judgment affirmed. Smith, P.J., and Phipps, J., concur. See Benton Express v. Royal Ins. Co. c., 217 Ga. App. 331, 333-334 (3) ( 457 S.E.2d 566) (1995) (insurance company entitled to summary judgment on claims that it settled cases in bad faith based on its unrebutted evidence of good faith.)

] We are persuaded by the reasoning of these cases that because of the potential for conflict of interest, in dealing with retrospective premium policies, a duty is imposed upon the insurer to act reasonably and in good faith." Benton Express v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 217 Ga. App. 331, 332-333 (1) ( 457 S.E.2d 566) (1995). While this policy is not a retrospective premium policy, it has retroactive premium calculation provisions so that the same duties apply to the insurer, because the insurer has the power to change significantly the premiums due after the expiration of the policy.

We believe the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would find the Maryland Court of Appeals' opinion in Port East Transfer, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 330 Md. 376, 624 A.2d 520 (1993) as persuasive as we do. See Port East Transfer, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 330 Md. 376, 624 A.2d 520 (1993); Corrado Bros., Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 562 A.2d 1188 (De. 1989); Deerfield Plastics Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 404 Mass. 484, 536 N.E.2d 322 (1989); Transport Indem. Co. v. Dahlen Transp. Inc., 281 Minn. 253, 161 N.W.2d 546 (1968); Benton Express, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 217 Ga. App. 331, 457 S.E.2d 566 (1995); National Sur. Corp. v. Fast Motor Serv., 213 Ill. App.3d 500, 157 Ill. Dec. 619, 572 N.E.2d 1083 (1991); Transit Cas. Co. v. Topeka Transp. Co., 8 Kan. App. 2d 597, 663 P.2d 308 (1983); Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Binnings Constr. Co., 288 So.2d 359) (La.Ct.App. 1974). Defendants also cite limited contrary authority as well. Austin Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 842 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1992).

Other jurisdictions have imposed a duty of good faith on insurers in situations involving the adjustment of retrospective insurance premiums, which are premiums that are adjusted based on the insured's claims history. See Benton Express, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. Of America, 457 S.E.2d 566, 567 (Ga.Ct.App. 1995); Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Fast Motor Serv., Inc., 572 N.E.2d 1083, 1087 (Ill.App.Ct. 1991). The adhesionary nature of the insurance relationship which was a fundamental basis for White v. Unigard's recognition of the tort of bad faith is evident here.

o reasonably investigate claims made against the insured results in an increased retrospective premium (compare, Hartford Acc. Indem. Co. v. Coastal Dry Dock Repair Corp., 97 A.D.2d 724, affd 62 N.Y.2d 924, with Security Officers Serv. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 17 Cal.App.4th 887, 896-897, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 653, review denied 1993 Cal LEXIS 5522 [Sup Ct, Oct. 21, 1993], citing, inter alia, National Sur. Corp. v. Fast Motor Serv., 213 Ill. App.3d 500, 572 N.E.2d 1083), and we decline to do so here. The policy commits the investigation of claims to plaintiff insurer, and the manner in which plaintiff performed this function was a matter of business judgment within the discretion of its management (see, Fidelity Cas. Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 42 Misc.2d 616, 630). In any event, plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment since defendant's opposition was wholly inadequate to raise any issues of fact as to whether plaintiff did not investigate claims in good faith (see, Benton Express v. Royal Ins. Co., 217 Ga. App. 331, 334, 457 S.E.2d 566, 568, cert denied 1995 Ga LEXIS 1018 [Sup Ct, Sept. 5, 1995]). We also agree with the IAS Court that the payment of dividends was within plaintiff's discretion, and that plaintiff was justified in refusing to pay a dividend to defendant based on defendant's failure to meet its obligation to pay the premium.