Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Burke v. Prime Rate Premium Finance Corp.
Citations: 325 Ga. App. 760; 754 S.E.2d 802; 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 299; 2014 WL 594360; 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 68Docket: A13A2301
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; February 18, 2014; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Thomas Burke, operating as American Transport, appeals the trial court's denial of his summary judgment motion and the summary judgment granted to Prime Rate Premium Finance Corporation regarding a finance agreement balance. The appellate court affirms the trial court's decisions, noting no genuine issue of material fact exists. The court reviews summary judgment motions under OCGA 9-11-56, requiring the moving party to demonstrate no material facts are disputed, with facts viewed favorably toward the non-moving party. Burke entered a finance agreement with Prime to finance insurance premiums for his commercial transportation business, involving Truck Insurance Group, LLC as the agent and Nova Casualty Company as the insurer. Burke financed $43,753 of a total premium of $54,692 and was to make nine monthly payments of $5,017.51. The insurance policy was canceled on December 19, 2010, although it is unclear who initiated the cancellation; Burke claims it was TIG. Prime filed suit on September 13, 2011, seeking $36,421.91 owed under the finance agreement, without including Nova or TIG in the action. Burke contends that Prime's claim against him is precluded by OCGA 33-22-14(a), which outlines the obligations of insurers regarding unearned premiums after cancellation of a policy. This statute mandates that if an insurer has been notified of a finance agreement, it must return unearned premiums to the finance company. However, it does not create an exclusive remedy but establishes a statutory lien right for the premium finance company over the unearned premiums. The premium financing agreement between Burke and Prime establishes an account receivable, granting Prime the right to recover its principal along with any applicable fees and penalties. The trial court confirmed that no unearned premiums were returned to Prime, which undermines Burke’s claim that OCGA 33-22-14 (a) serves as his exclusive remedy. Under the finance agreement, Burke is obligated to pay the financed amount and any unpaid balance to Prime immediately upon policy cancellation. Burke's liability is limited to the loan balance after accounting for unearned premiums, but since there is no evidence that Prime received any unearned premiums, his argument lacks merit. Furthermore, the legislature did not mandate that a finance company must first claim unearned premiums before pursuing legal action against the insured. Burke did not pursue claims against Nova, the insurer, for failing to return unearned premiums, nor did he file a third-party action against TIG for allegedly retaining such funds unlawfully. The trial court's decision to grant summary judgment is affirmed, as there are no material facts in dispute regarding Burke’s obligations under the finance agreement. The account summary from Prime shows multiple cancellation entries, confirming the agreement's stipulation that cancellation due to payment default requires immediate payment of the unpaid balance. Burke also contended that he assigned his interest in unearned premiums to Prime, alleging that TIG and Jacoway had received these premiums without remitting them. Additionally, Burke filed a fraud complaint against Jacoway after discovering new coverage was secured through a different insurer, which he claims also faced cancellation without remittance of unearned premiums.