A Georgia producer distributes a flyer stating that a competing insurer 'is insolvent and cannot pay claims,' knowing the statement is false. Under O.C.G.A. § 33-6-4(b)(3), this conduct is:

Why C is correct

A knowingly false statement attacking a competitor's solvency is defamation under O.C.G.A. § 33-6-4(b)(3), which prohibits false or malicious statements that disparage a competitor's financial condition. The rule protects fair competition: disagreements about products must be argued with facts, while false attacks on another insurer's ability to pay claims are actionable unfair competition that the Insurance Commissioner can sanction.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Misrepresentation under § 33-6-4(b)(2) concerns false statements about one's own policy terms or benefits, not attacks on a competitor's solvency.
• B) Twisting under § 33-6-4(b)(2) involves misrepresenting to induce a policyholder to surrender an existing policy; no surrender is involved here.
• D) Coercion and boycott under § 33-6-4(b)(4) involve intimidation or concerted refusals to deal, not disparaging statements.

Memory hook

Attack a rival's solvency with a known lie — that's defamation.