concurring.
This is a close case. Underlying the specific issue presented, however, is the clear objective of the State’s mandatory automobile liability insurance system, which is to ensure that all vehicles are insured at all times for the protection of the public as well as their drivers and passengers. See OCGA § 33-34-4; Flewellen v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 250 Ga. 709, 710 (300 SE2d 673) (1983) (“The clear legislative intent of [the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act] is to require all motor vehicle owners to carry no-fault insurance. ...”). One aspect of this system is the requirement that automobile insurers notify insureds in writing of the cancellation of their policies due to nonpayment of premiums “at least ten days prior to the effective date of cancellation.” OCGA § 33-24-44 (d). The clear objective of this provision is to give insureds a grace period of at least ten days to obtain new insurance, preventing gaps in coverage.
OCGA § 33-24-44 does not specify any particular wording or format that must be used in a notice of cancellation. Compare OCGA § 33-24-45 (e) (5), (6) (reciting specific notice language that must appear in certain notices of nonrenewal). It simply requires that the notice state “the time when the cancellation will be effective.” OCGA § 33-24-44 (b). Everyone agrees that the notice must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, and I agree with the majority that the notice at issue in this case meets that test. See Majority Op. at 87-88, 91-92.
The major point of disagreement between the majority and dissenting opinions is whether a cancellation notice must also be *95“unconditional” in order to be effective. The dissenting opinion says yes and argues that a notice of cancellation is ineffective when it offers continuation of the policy if the overdue payment is made by the stated cancellation date. The Court of Appeals cases, like the cases from other states, provide conflicting answers on this question. Compare Majority Op. at 91-92 (discussing cases), with Dissenting Op. at 97 (discussing cases).
This Court’s only case suggesting that a notice of cancellation must be unconditional, in addition to clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, predates the automobile, much less mandatory automobile liability insurance and the notice statute at issue here. See Petersburg Sav. & Ins. Co. v. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co., 66 Ga. 446, 465 (1881). Moreover, Petersburg cannot bear the weight the dissenting opinion places on it. The jury instructions at issue in that case, and hence the Court’s opinion, did state that the notice of cancellation “must be made or given unconditionally,” rather than being “ ‘a mere expression of a desire . . . that the policy should be cancelled.’ ” Id. Close examination of the somewhat convoluted facts of the case, however, reveals that the controlling question was not whether the cancellation (of a fire re-insurance policy) was conditional, but rather whether it was clearly and unambiguously communicated to the Manhattan Fire Insurance Company by someone with authority to act as the Petersburg Savings and Insurance Company’s agent in the matter.
A rule requiring cancellation notices to be truly “unconditional” would make little sense in light of the objective of the mandatory automobile liability insurance system. To be truly unconditional, a cancellation notice would have to state unequivocally that the insurance policy will be cancelled, no matter what, on a specified date, which could be as soon as ten days later, leaving the insured to obtain a new policy quite quickly. As the majority recognizes, see Majority Op. at 94, the overarching statutory policy that there be no gaps in insurance coverage is clearly promoted by instead allowing the existing insurer to offer the insured the opportunity to continue coverage simply by making the payment due before the clearly stated cancellation date. Writing and delivering a check or other payment is certainly easier and surer than finding, applying for, being approved for, and having in place a new insurance policy, particularly because there is no guarantee that the insured will be able to easily find a new policy or one at the same cost. Indeed, because the insurer may have an interest in keeping the insured’s business, it may, as in this case, provide a grace period longer than the ten-day statutory minimum.
The appellants, and the dissenting opinion, seem to recognize that a rule requiring truly unconditional notice — that is, precluding *96insurers from offering in a cancellation notice the option of continued coverage if the overdue premium is paid — will lead to more gaps in coverage. See Dissenting Op. at 97-98; Motion for Reconsideration at 25-28. Thus, the dissent asserts that continuation of coverage may be offered in the notice of cancellation by “leav[ing] open the possibility of reinstatement” of the policy if the overdue payment is received. Dissenting Op. at 98.1 see no meaningful legal distinction, and I do not believe most laypeople would see any practical one, between a notice advising that a policy will be cancelled on a certain date unless the overdue payment is received (i.e., the type of notice in this case) and a notice advising that a policy will be cancelled on a certain date but will be reinstated if the overdue payment is received (i.e., the type of notice the dissent would approve). Either way the practical concerns that the appellants raise, such as uncertainty about whether a mailed payment has been received and credited, would be present. However, these issues, and many more, would be present if we required that an existing policy must actually be cancelled if a cancellation notice is to be effective, so that a new policy had to be obtained.
These cases are decided based upon the content of the specific notice at issue. Prudent insurers that wish to avoid legal risk and best serve their customers might choose the type of notice language that appellants endorse in their motion for reconsideration. I see no controlling legal distinction, however, between that language and the language of the notice in this case. There is no good reason to prevent an insurer from clearly and unambiguously notifying an insured that, due to overdue premiums, his or her policy will be cancelled on a specific date at least ten days later, while offering to continue or reinstate that policy if proper payment is received before that date.
As I said at the outset, this is a close case, but I ultimately agree with the majority that a notice of cancellation of an automobile insurance policy must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, but need not be unconditional, and that the notice in this case satisfies that standard. We therefore properly give a negative answer to the certified question.