See OCGA § 1-3-1 (b). It is not limited to claims on contracts of insurance. It must, however, be a claim against an "insurer," and therefore arise out of the defendant's role as an insurer. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lott, 246 Ga. 423( 271 S.E.2d 833)(1980). This tort action does. Among other allegations, the Pattermans contend that the defendants made misrepresentations to induce them to surrender their existing policies and purchase different ones. Under the Georgia Insurance Code, such actions can constitute engaging in the business of insurance. See OCGA §§ 33-1-2(6); 33-6-4(b) (2).
It must, however, be a claim against an `insurer,' and therefore arise out of defendant's role as an insurer. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lott, 246 Ga. 423 ( 271 S.E.2d 833) (1980). (Emphasis in original.)
It must, however, be a claim against an `insurer,' and therefore arise out of defendant's role as an insurer. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lott, 246 Ga. 423 ( 271 S.E.2d 833) (1980). (Emphasis in original.)
To the extent that there is any limitation to the application of the statute, such limitation is not based on the words "claim or demand," but on the word "insurer." See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lott, 246 Ga. 423 ( 271 S.E.2d 833) (1980). In Lott, the Supreme Court construed subsection (2) of the statute, which is the provision at issue here.
See Code Ann. § 56-1201 (Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 500; 1969, p. 740). See Lott v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 154 Ga. App. 474, 475 (3) ( 268 S.E.2d 686); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lott, 246 Ga. 423 ( 271 S.E.2d 833), affg. Lott v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 154 Ga. App. 474, supra; Peters v. Queen Ins. Co., 137 Ga. 440 (1) ( 73 S.E. 664); Carlan v. Fidelity Cas. Co., 183 Ga. 715 ( 189 S.E. 527).