insurance

Does Bankruptcy Get an Insurance Company Off the Hook for a Personal Injury Judgment?

February 27, 2018 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Winning a personal injury judgment following a car accident does not always guarantee that the victim will actually get paid. There are cases in which a defendant who lacks adequate financial resources will file for protection under federal bankruptcy law. This can delay and in some cases defeat collection of a valid personal injury judgment under Georgia law.

For instance, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor’s non-exempt property is liquidated to pay any creditors to the extent possible. The remaining debts may then be “discharged.” This does not mean that the debt itself is void. Rather, a discharge means that the debtor is no longer legally obligated to repay the debt, and the creditor may take no further collection action against that individual. However, if there are multiple parties liable for a judgment, the bankruptcy of one defendant does not affect the enforceability of the judgment against the other, non-bankrupt defendants.

Flanders v. Jackson

When is a Georgia Insurer Not Liable for Accident Coverage Under an Umbrella Policy?

February 23, 2018 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Many Georgia residents take out umbrella policies to provide liability coverage above and beyond their standard auto insurance. Umbrella policies are especially beneficial to victims who sustain financial losses in excess of the normal car insurance policy. For example, if your injuries following a car accident cost you $500,000 in lost wages and medical expenses, and the other driver’s policy only has a $250,000 limit, an umbrella policy can make up that difference.

Government Employees Insurance Company v. Gordon

Of course, that assumes that the company that issued the umbrella policy does not attempt to disclaim coverage. As we know all too well, insurers will never hesitate to try and avoid paying when they can. Here is a recent federal case involving the application of Georgia law in which a court addressed an insurance company’s attempt to avoid its obligations.

How Ridesharing May Affect Your Car Insurance in Georgia

February 13, 2018 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Ridesharing has become a popular way for many residents of the Atlanta metropolitan area to earn additional income via smartphone apps like Uber and Lyft. Before you sign up to offer rides for money, you should check with your car insurance company. Many standard insurance policies exclude coverage for “public or livery conveyance.” In fact, your existing policy may be canceled if you start offering rides for money without notifying your carrier. If you are in an accident while driving for Uber or Lyft, you may be on the hook for any damages.

Haulers Insurance Co. v. Davenport

What if you are just giving a friend a ride for no payment? Could your insurer declare that you were actually providing a livery service and refuse to cover your accident? According to a recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the answer is probably no.

Does a Fianceé Qualify for Accident Benefits Under a Car Insurance Policy?

January 31, 2018 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

One of the recurring questions that arise in personal injury cases is determining who is covered by an auto insurance policy. Since most claims are paid via some form of insurance, whether it is that of the negligent driver or the victim’s own uninsured motorist coverage, it is critical to ascertain from the outset who is and is not covered. Rest assured, the insurance company will make every effort to deny coverage if it has a plausible legal reason to do so.

Stanley v. Government Employees Insurance Company

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed an interesting variant of our recurring question: Does an uninsured motorist (UM) policy cover the fianceé (or common law spouse) of a named insured? The plaintiff in this personal injury case was driving a vehicle owned by his employer when he was the victim of a head-on collision with another driver. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries and sued the other driver for negligence.

Contradictory Testimony Dooms Car Accident Victim’s Push for Summary Judgment Against Insurer

January 19, 2018 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Before initiating any kind of personal injury lawsuit, it is important to gather all of the relevant facts and make sure that you are consistent and truthful in any pretrial statements you make, whether to your own attorney or to the court. Inconsistencies, even if they are honest misunderstandings or lapses in memory, can significantly harm your case. In some circumstances they can even prove fatal to a claim.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Corp. v. Fabrizio

You especially do not want to get caught in an inconsistency when dealing with an insurance company. A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals offers a useful illustration of why not. This ongoing lawsuit started with a 2013 car accident between the plaintiff and another driver. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the other driver.

Waiting to Notify Your Insurance Company About an Accident can Come Back to Haunt You

December 29, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Dealing with an insurance company following a car accident can be a major hassle. As a result, some accident victims simply put it off. This is almost always a mistake. It is not simply a good idea to notify your insurer of your accident in a timely manner. In many cases, you can be denied coverage when you later file a claim.

Sharpe v. Great Midwest Insurance Company

Here is a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision that illustrates how unforgiving judges can be when it comes to enforcing notification requirements. This case arises from a 2013 truck accident in Statesboro. The plaintiff was driving a vehicle owned by his employer when he was rear-ended by another vehicle. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained a serious neck injury.

What Happens When a Georgia Insurance Company Rejects an Accident Settlement in “Bad Faith”?

December 22, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Auto insurance is designed to pay for damages caused by an accident. In many cases an insurer will negotiate a settlement with the injured party. While the insurer is not obligated to pay claims it determines are unsubstantiated, the insurer cannot simply refuse to pay without consequence. Under Georgia law, an insurer can be held liable for “bad faith or negligent refusal to settle a personal claim within the policy limits.”

What does this mean in practice? Say you have a policy that covers $100,000 for bodily injury claims per accident. You are subsequently involved in an accident and are determined to be at fault. The other driver offers to release any potential personal injury claim against you in exchange for the limit of your policy, i.e. $100,000. The insurer refuses to settle. The other driver sues you in court and the jury returns a verdict of $500,000. You could then turn around and sue the insurer for the $400,000 excess you had to pay as a result of its bad faith refusal to settle.

Whiteside v. GEICO Indemnity Company

Georgia Insurer Faces Racketeering Charge After Denying Car Accident Victim’s Claim

October 13, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Haggling with insurance companies following a car accident is an everyday occurrence for many Georgia motorists. At the end of the day, an insurance policy is a contract, and if the insurer refuses to pay a valid claim, it can be held liable under Georgia law. Specifically, Section 33-4-6 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated states that an auto insurer that rejects a claim “in bad faith” must pay not only for the policyholder’s losses, but also a penalty equal to greater than $5,000 or 50% of the insured party’s total liability.

Stiegel v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

Could an insurer face liability beyond that provided under Section 33-4-6? According to a recent ruling by a federal judge in Columbus, the answer may be yes. In this case, an accident victim is alleging not just bad faith, but also potential violations of state racketeering laws.

How Uninsured Motorist Coverage Protects You Following an Accident Caused by a Drunk Driver

August 31, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Each year more than 300 people die on Georgia roadways in drunk driving accidents. While prosecutors can file criminal charges against the drunk driver, that does not compensate victims and their families for their losses. Unfortunately, in many cases the drunk driver either has no insurance or lacks sufficient coverage to fully compensate the victims.

This is where uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage can come into play. Under Georgia law, all auto insurance providers must offer UM/UIM coverage as part of their standard policies. The customer has the option to decline such coverage, but must do so in writing. While you are free to purchase any amount of UM/UIM insurance that an insurer offers, state law sets minimum coverage at $25,000 for bodily injury per person (or $50,000 per accident). In many cases, it is a good idea to purchase significantly more coverage, as the damages from an accident can easily exceed $50,000, especially if there is serious injury or death.

Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Musgrove

Is an Insurance Company Liable for Losing an Accident Victim’s Car?

July 5, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Many single-car accidents are the result of a defective part. If that is the case, the driver may have a personal injury claim under Georgia product liability law. Specifically, O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 states that a court may order a manufacturer to pay damages to any person “who suffers injury to his person or property” as the result of merchandise that “was not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended.”

Phillips v. Owners Insurance Company

Given that product liability cases are highly fact-specific and by their very nature revolve around a particular item, it is critical to preserve any and all physical evidence from a car accident. It may take several months or years to fully investigate the cause of the accident and the potential liability of the numerous manufacturers involved. When evidence is lost or destroyed, it can adversely affect a victim’s case.