When Can Uninsured Motorist Coverage Be Rejected?
After an automobile collision, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the driver of a commercial tractor-trailer. The tractor-trailer driver filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that this was appropriate due to the plaintiffs’ limited liability release under O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1. The trial court granted the motion, and this appeal followed. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment when the release contained an exception for other insurance.
Background of the accident
On September 18, 2015, a tractor trailer driver was operating a vehicle owned by his employer when he and the plaintiffs had a collision.
The plaintiffs filed an action against the tractor-trailer driver alleging that his negligent driving caused the collision. The plaintiff asserted claims for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages; his wife asserted a loss of consortium claim. The plaintiffs executed a limited liability release pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1, wherein they released the tractor-trailer driver’s auto liability insurance carrier, and the driver “except to the extent other insurance coverage is available which covers the claim or claims of the plaintiffs against the tractor-trailer driver.”
The plaintiffs also settled with their own auto-liability insurance company. The employee of the tractor-trailer company filed a uninsured motorist coverage (UM) claim with the insurer under the tractor-trailer company’s liability policy. The insurer didn’t reject the plaintiff’s UM claim, but it didn’t participate in the underlying lawsuit and failed to respond to discovery requests.
The tractor-trailer driver filed his motion for summary judgment, pointing to the release and arguing that the plaintiffs exhausted all possible insurance coverage. In his brief, he contended that the insurer indicated that there was no uninsured motorist coverage on the Georgia policy and didn’t participated in the case. The driver attached a one-page, undated document to his brief, titled “Uninsured Motorists/Underinsured Motorist Coverage Summary” (“Summary”), which purported to be a document from the liability policy insuring the tractor-trailer company. It said that they rejected coverage in Georgia, and no limit of insurance is provided for vehicles principally garaged or registered in Georgia.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by concluding that the limited liability release precluded recovery because the insurance policy might provide UM coverage.
The Court of Appeals Reverses
Chief Judge Amanda H. Mercier noted in her opinion for the Court of Appeals that generally, insurance policies issued or delivered in Georgia must contain provisions for uninsured motorist coverage. O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11(a)(1) provides that, at the option of the insured can’t be less than $25,000 per person, or equal to the policy’s bodily injury liability insurance coverage, if higher than $25,000 per person. However, a policy isn’t required to provide uninsured motorist coverage insurance if the named insured rejects the UM coverage in writing.
The Georgia Supreme Court has stated:
The purpose of uninsured motorist legislation is to require some provision for first-party insurance coverage to facilitate indemnification for injuries to a person who is legally entitled to recover damages from an uninsured motorist, and thereby to protect innocent victims from the negligence of irresponsible drivers. Uninsured motorist statutes are remedial in nature and must be broadly construed to accomplish the legislative purpose.
The tractor-trailer driver asserted that his employer’s insurance policy excluded UM coverage. As such, the only point at issue was whether the insurer obtained a valid rejection of uninsured motorist coverage from the tractor-trailer company.
As the tractor-trailer driver asserted the affirmative defense of the release and the absence of UM coverage, the burden lies with him to show that the insured made an affirmative written choice to reject UM coverage.
The plaintiffs contended that the Summary was insufficient evidence to show that the tractor-trailer company made an affirmative written choice to reject UM coverage. The Court of Appeals agreed.
Judge Mercier explained that while there are no formal requirements governing how an insured may reject UM insurance, the statute requires that the rejection be in writing. Further, O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11(a)(3) requires that the written rejection must be done by “any insured named in the policy.” Here, the named insured was the tractor-trailer company, and the record didn’t contain the tractor-trailer company’s insurance application or anything that could constitute its affirmative choice in writing to reject UM coverage, the chief justice concluded. The one page, undated, Summary attached to the tractor-trailer driver’s brief showed merely the insurer’s assertion that the tractor-trailer company rejected UM coverage.
An insurance policy’s exclusion of UM coverage, absent a written rejection, doesn’t excuse an insurance carrier from complying with O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11. In a 2011 decision, the Court of Appeals stated:
Under Georgia law, an insurance company is free to fix the terms of its policies as it sees fit, so long as they are not contrary to the law. However, provisions in insurance policies that conflict with the plain terms of Georgia’s insurance statutes are illegal and of no effect.
If the insurer fails to get a written rejection of UM coverage, its UM exclusion would conflict with O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11 and be void. Here, the Court of Appeals wasn’t persuaded that the Summary, alone, was evidence of the affirmative written choice made by the tractor-trailer company to reject UM insurance coverage.
Because the tractor-trailer driver failed to show an absence of other insurance, specifically there was no evidence that the tractor-trailer company rejected UM coverage in writing, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment. The judgment was reversed. Williams v. Reddick, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 492, 2025 LX 420318, 2025 WL 3022134 (Ga. App. October 29, 2025).
Speak with Our Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer for a Free Consultation. Knowing the law and hiring a knowledgeable Georgia personal injury attorney Georgia residents call makes a significant difference in an auto or truck accident. Every consultation with Tobin Injury Law is 100% confidential and 100% free. We’ve worked with accident victims all across the state to success. Contact an Atlanta personal injury lawyer at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or reach out through our online contact form.