50, 400 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1990). None of the statutes cited by defendants purport to create a private cause of action. Plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendants’ claims based on various Georgia criminal statutes is therefore GRANTED. 2. Common Law Conversion Defendants also assert a claim for common law conversion. (Defs.’ Counterclaims [5] at ¶¶ 154-156.) This claim is based on plaintiffs failure to pay proceeds pursuant to the terms of Grongie’s life insurance policies. (Id.) Georgia law is clear that a claim for conversion “does not lie on account of a mere failure to pay money due under a contract.” Morris v. Nat’l W. Life Ins. Co., 208 Ga.App. 443, 444, 430 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1993). See also, Faircloth v. A.L. Williams & Assoc., Inc., 206 Ga.App. 764, 768, 426 S.E.2d 601, 605 (1992) (<HOLDING>) and Unified Serv., Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 218
holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim was predicated on tort and that it was therefore subject to the statute of limitations for tort actions holding that a lawsuit for failure to pay on an insurance contract does not sound in tort holding that a claim for violation of the fair debt collection practices act is not a personal injury tort claim holding that contract debt  was not subject to an act in tort for conversion