How Quickly Must You Notify Your Insurance Company After a Car Accident?
After a passenger was injured in an auto accident, she sued the driver for negligence and served Progressive as the putative uninsured motorist (“UM”) carrier. In a motion, Progressive argued that the plaintiff didn’t notify them “promptly” of the accident, like the insurance policy required. When the trial court denied Progressive’s motion, they appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Background
On December 25, 2020, the plaintiff was injured in an auto accident when the driver lost control of the vehicle and ran into a ditch. She sued the driver for negligence per se, and served Progressive as the UM carrier.
Per the terms of the insurance policy, “for coverage to apply under this policy, you or the person seeking coverage must promptly report each accident or loss even if you or the person seeking coverage is not at fault.”
The policy further provides that “no claim shall be denied due to your failure to notify us within 30 days of an accident or loss if we receive written notice, by U. S. mail, from an injured person.”
The plaintiff was covered by the policy as the step-daughter of the named insured. Although the accident occurred in December 2020, Progressive didn’t get notice of the accident until November 2021 when it received a letter from the plaintiff’s attorney.
In its motion, Progressive argued that the plaintiff failed to notify it promptly under the policy. But the trial court denied the motion based on the language in the policy that Progressive wouldn’t deny a claim if it received written notice by mail from an injured person. Progressive appealed, asserting that erred by denying its motion for summary judgment because the court relied on the wrong policy clause and thus failed to recognize that the plaintiff didn’t promptly notify the insurance company of her accident as a matter of law due to the 11-month delay.
According to Progressive, the policy terms were unambiguous, and prompt notification was a condition precedent to obtaining coverage. Progressive further contended that the second clause, regarding notice by mail, applied only to the insured ‘s failure to notify, and not the injured party’s failure.
The Court of Appeals
Judge Todd Markle wrote that when interpreting an insurance policy, the court should note that—
an insurance policy is simply a contract, the provisions of which should be construed as any other type of contract. Construction of the contract, at the outset, is a question of law for the court. The court undertakes a three-step process in the construction of the contract, the first of which is to determine if the instrument’s language is clear and unambiguous. If the language is unambiguous, the court simply enforces the contract according to the terms, and looks to the contract alone for the meaning.
The judge explained that the court must consider the policy as a whole, giving effect to each provision, and reading each provision in harmony with the others. Additionally, the court must read the contract in a way that gives effect to each provision, and avoid any interpretation that would render a portion of the policy meaningless. Finally, the policy should be read as a layman would read it, and not as it might be analyzed by an insurance expert or an attorney. Where the contractual language is explicit and unambiguous, the court’s job is simply to apply the terms of the contract as written, regardless of whether doing so benefits the carrier or the insured.
Here, Progressive argued that the provision for prompt notification applied to the plaintiff and precluded her claim, and that the clause permitting notice by mail didn’t apply because that provision excuses only the insured’s failure to provide prompt notification. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that she was covered by the policy because she—the injured person—provided written notice by mail.
Quoting a 2013 decision, Judge Markle wrote that “a notice provision expressly made a condition precedent to coverage is valid and must be complied with, absent a showing of justification.” Here, the policy used language “for coverage to apply,” making prompt notice a condition precedent. He noted that “prompt” is defined as “done quickly, immediately, or performed without delay,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary.
The Court’s reading of the policy demonstrated that it was unambiguous, Judge Markle concluded. The notification provisions appeared in the section entitled “DUTIES IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT OR LOSS,” and imposed an obligation on every person — the insured or “the person seeking coverage” — to provide prompt notification of the accident to Progressive. To read this provision the way that the plaintiff suggested would essentially nullify the prompt notice requirement because it would enable parties to circumvent the requirement. That interpretation was contrary to the obvious intent of the policy, which is to require notice promptly after the occurrence of an accident, the judge opined.
Having concluded that the plaintiff was subject to the prompt notification provision, Judge Markle looked at whether her notice—11 months after the accident—satisfied the requirement. The judge explained that a notice provision expressly made a condition precedent to coverage is valid and must be complied with, absent a showing of justification. Generally, whether an insured gave prompt notification is a question for the jury, but in certain cases, the facts and circumstances may show that the delay was unjustified as a matter of law.
In this case, having found the prompt notification requirement didn’t apply to the plaintiff, the trial court failed to consider whether the plaintiff offered any justification for her delay. As a result, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to consider whether the plaintiff could offer any reasonable justification for the delay. Progressive Mt. Ins. Co. v. Vining, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 434 (Ga. App. October 28, 2024).
Contact Us
If you are injured in an accident, leave the communications with the insurance company to an experienced Atlanta personal injury attorney.
You can contact an Atlanta accident attorney 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or using our online contact form. We offer free consultations, and we’ll be happy to answer your questions.