insurance

How Can an Umbrella Policy Protect Me Following a Car Accident?

May 26, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Many Georgia residents take out “umbrella” policies to provide extra insurance protection in the event of an accident. An umbrella policy provides liability coverage above and beyond standard homeowners or automobile insurance. For example, let’s say your auto insurance policy provides $25,000 in coverage for bodily injury. You get into an accident and the other driver sues you for damages. The court awards the driver $100,000, which obviously exceeds your policy limit. At this point, if you have an umbrella policy, which typically provides coverage in the millions of dollars, it would cover the rest of the judgment.

Massey v. Allstate Insurance Company

You can also purchase an umbrella policy for uninsured motorist coverage. This refers to insurance that pays for injuries that you sustain in an accident caused by another driver who either has no insurance or lacks sufficient coverage to pay for your total damages. Georgia law requires all insurers to offer uninsured motorist coverage of at least $25,000 for bodily injury to a single person (or $50,000 for multiple people injured in the same accident). The customer has the option of rejecting UM coverage, but it must be offered.

Insurer Possibly on the Hook for Georgia Railroad Crossing Accident

April 11, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Transportation launched a $7 million advertising campaign to warn drivers about the dangers of railroad crossings. The DOT noted that while the total number of railroad incidents have been in decline over the past decade, a person or vehicle is still hit by a train roughly every three hours. In 2016, there were 232 reported deaths due to railroad crossing accidents.

Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Recently the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta dealt with a personal injury lawsuit arising from a 2011 railroad crossing accident. The victim was severely injured when a train struck her. She claimed she could not see te approaching train due to “overgrown and improperly maintained vegetation at the railroad crossing.”

Insurer Not Liable For $1.2M Judgment in Fatal DUI Accident

October 9, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Most car accident lawsuits in Georgia are handled by the negligent driver’s insurance company. If an insurer refuses to settle a personal injury claim “in bad faith,” said insurer may be liable for any judgment against the insured in excess of the policy’s normal limits. In other words, the insurance company may not place its own interests ahead of those of its policyholders by dragging its feet to avoid settling an apparently valid personal injury claim.

Linthicum v. Mendakota Insurance Company

But an insurance company’s obligation is only to act reasonably when attempting to negotiate a settlement. It is not necessarily liable just because no settlement is reached. A recent decision by a federal judge in Savannah illustrates this point.

Georgia Judge Settles Question of Who Owned Car on Day of Fatal Accident

August 13, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Insurance policies frequently cover any damages incurred due to a car accident. But it is not unusual in Georgia for insurance companies to disclaim or otherwise reject coverage if the insured does not strictly comply with all terms of the policy. In some cases, insurance companies may end up fighting among themselves over who is liable for any damages arising from a personal injury claim.

Selective Insurance Company of America v. Russell

A federal judge in Gainesville recently addressed such a case. This is one of two lawsuits arising from a 2011 car accident. Two vehicles collided, resulting in the death of a passenger in one of the cars. The driver of Car A and the estate of the deceased passenger sued the driver of Car B in Georgia state court.

When Does an Insurance Settlement Offer Become a Binding Agreement?

June 30, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Dealing with insurance companies is often the first legal issue that needs to be managed following a car accident. While many cases are amicably resolved with insurers without the need for litigation, accident victims always need to tread carefully lest they inadvertently sign away their legal rights. As a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision illustrates, when you propose to settle a case you must be prepared to live with the consequences.

Partain v. Pitts

The plaintiff and defendant in this case were drivers involved in a car accident. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging the latter’s negligence caused the accident and the plaintiff’s resulting injuries. Four days after filing suit, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a settlement letter to the claims adjuster for the defendant’s car insurance carrier. The letter said the plaintiff would agree to sign a limited liability release in exchange for $50,000, which was the coverage limit of the defendant’s insurance policy. The letter further said the offer would only remain good for two weeks, and the plaintiff’s attorney had to receive a check by the deadline, otherwise the settlement offer was rescinded.

Georgia Court Sorts Out Uninsured Motorist Coverage Involving Multiple Insurers

June 24, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Uninsured motorist coverage extends the protection of your own automobile insurance to accidents caused by another party who lacks sufficient insurance to compensate you for any injuries. For example, let’s say a drunk driver hits you. You subsequently sue the driver and win $1,000,000 in damages from the jury. But the driver only has $25,000 in insurance and lacks any other assets to pay the remainder of the judgment. In this situation you could seek compensation under your own policy’s uninsured motorist coverage.

Coker v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company

The above example seems relatively straightforward. But what happens when there are multiple insurers who may be liable for the same accident? A federal appeals court in Atlanta recently addressed such a case.

Insurer Not Liable for Fight Over Ownership of Car

April 8, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Georgia law requires all drivers to carry auto insurance. The law sets certain minimum requirements for coverage. For example, a policy must include provide at least $25,000 in coverage for “bodily injury” to one person, or $50,000 to cover multiple persons injured in the same accident. Remember, these are only minimum requirements, and many drivers choose to purchase insurance policies with higher coverage limits.

State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Marshall

But insurance does not cover an accident just because your car may be involved in some way. A recent Georgia case illustrates this point. The case actually began as a dispute over the ownership of a car. In 2010, a boyfriend purchased a car for his girlfriend. She had poor credit and needed him to register the car in his name so she could obtain a loan to finance the purchase. Although the girlfriend subsequently made the loan payments, the vehicle remained legally titled in the name of the boyfriend.

What Happens When Two Insurance Policies Cover the Same Accident?

February 12, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are injured in an accident and the other driver lacks sufficient insurance to cover any damages, you may turn to your insurance policy’s uninsured motorist coverage. But what happens if you are eligible for uninsured motorist coverage under two different insurance policies? Which policy has priority? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question.

Sentinel Insurance Company v. USAA Insurance Company

This case began with a rear-end collision. One driver sued the other for negligence. The plaintiff also served two insurance companies as co-defendants. She claimed eligibility for uninsured motorist benefits under both companies’ policies.

Columbus Jury Awards $650,000 to Driver Seriously Injured in Trucking Accident

January 29, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

When it comes to trucking accidents, Georgia has what is known as a “direct action” rule. This means that if you are injured due to a commercial truck driver’s negligence, you can name not only the trucking company but also its insurance carrier as defendants. This is an exception to the normal rule. In a personal injury case arising from a normal car accident, you cannot directly sue the insurer. This is because it is generally considered unfair to the trucking company if the jury is made aware that an insurance company is paying for any potential damages.

Wallace v. Wiley Sanders Truck Lines, Inc.

Trucking companies are understandably unhappy with the direct action rule, especially after they lose a lawsuit. But their complaints often fall on deaf ears. Consider this recent case from Columbus, Georgia.

Supreme Court Says Insurers Can Not Go After Accident Victim’s Personal Assets

January 22, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Although lawsuits arising from car accidents are usually dealt with under state law, there are questions of federal law that may arise from any settlement or judgment received by a victim. For example, if the victim received benefits from his or her employer-sponsored health insurance following an accident, the insurer may be entitled to enforce a lien against the proceeds from any personal injury lawsuit. The United States Supreme Court recently addressed the related question of how far an insurer may go to enforce such a lien.

Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan

This case originated in Florida. In 2008, a drunk driver ran a stop sign and hit another vehicle. The victim suffered serious injuries that required extensive medical care. The victim had health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan governed by federal law. Altogether, the insurer paid over $120,000 for the victim’s medical care following the accident.