After a serious motor vehicle collision, you may find that there are more than one uninsured motorist (UM)/underinsured motorist (UIM) policies under O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11 that could provide coverage. Instead of paying your claim, however, the insurance companies may begin pointing fingers at each other. One insurer says another policy should pay first. The other insurer disagrees. So how do Georgia courts decide who is responsible. Fortunately, Georgia law has developed a clear framework for answering that question
In Progressive Classic Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 294 Ga. App. 787, 670 S.E.2d 497 (2008), the Georgia Court of Appeals explained the three tests courts use to determine which UM policy has priority. Understanding these tests can help you make sense of a complicated insurance dispute and understand why the order of coverage matters.
Most people think of uninsured motorist coverage as a single insurance policy. In reality, more than one policy may provide coverage after a serious motor vehicle collision.
In a situation where the at fault party either has exhausted their policy to you, or does not have insurance, knowing what UM coverage you have available is important. In situations where there are multiple policies that provide UM coverage, Georgia law allows you to stack those policies on top of each other.
For example, you may be covered under your own automobile insurance policy, a spouse’s policy, a parent’s policy if you qualify as a resident relative, or the policy covering the vehicle you were riding in. In some cases, employer or commercial policies may also come into play.
When serval policies provide coverage, the question becomes which insurer must pay first. Insurance companies often disagree because the answer can significantly affect how much each company ultimately pays.
Can You Have More Than One UM Policy?
Yes, Georgia law recognizes that multiple UM policies may apply to the same collision.
The situation often arises when someone is:
- Driving a family members vehicle;
- Riding as a passenger in another person’s car;
- Living in the same household as relatives with their own insurance policies; or
- Driving a vehicle owners by an employer.
Having Multiple policies available can be beneficial because it may increase the total amount of coverage available. However, before the available coverage can be determined, the insurers must establish which policy has priority.
When answering this questions, Georgia courts apply a series of judicial tests developed through case law. The Court of Appeals explained that these questions are asked in order. If one test answers the priority question, the court generally does not move to the next test.
The first test focuses on a simple concept: who paid for the insurance?
If one insurance company received premiums directly from the injured person for uninsured motorist coverage, that policy may have the strongest claim to being primary. The reasoning is straightforward – the insured specifically paid that company to provide protection.
This test often resolves disputes where one policy clearly reflects the injured person’s own purchase of UM coverage.
In Progressive v. Nationwide, however, the first test did not settle the issue because the same individual paid the premiums on each of the competing policies. Since no insurer had a stronger claim under this analysis, the court moved to the second test.
When premium payments don’t answer the question, Georgia courts ask which insurance policy has the closest relationship to the injured person.
This analysis looks beyond the collision itself and instead focuses on the relationships between the injured person and each insurance policy. Courts may consider factors such as family relationships, who purchased the policy, who was intended to benefit from the coverage, and the injured person’s status within the insured household.
In Progressive v. Nationwide, this became the deciding test. Although several policies potentially provided coverage, the court concluded that the injured individual was more closely identified with the policies maintained by his father than with the policy originally issued for his sister’s vehicle. Because of that closer relationship, the father’s policies were given priority.
For many UM disputes in Georgia, this is the most important part of the analysis. It recognizes that not every available insurance policy has the same connection to the injured person.
If the first two tests still leave the issue unresolved, courts turn to the facts surrounding the collision itself. At this stage, courts may consider questions such as:
- Which vehicle was involved?
- Which policy most directly relates to that vehicle?
- Are there facts that make one policy more closely connected to the collision than another?
This third test serves as a tie-breaker when the earlier analyses do not produced a clear answer. Because the second test resolved the dispute in Progressive v. Nationwide, the court never needed to apply this final step.
Recently, the Mike Hostilo Law Firm had the opportunity to represent a client who was sideswiped while traveling through a roundabout. The liability insurance carrier initially denied responsibility and argued that liability could not be determined because each driver blamed the other. This was despite the responding officer noting in the police report that our client was not at fault for causing the collision.
What ultimately made the difference in this case was the evidence gathered at the scene. Our client wisely took multiple photographs, not only of the property damage to his vehicle, but also of the roadway and traffic layout within the roundabout. Those photographs clearly demonstrated that our client had lawful possession of the lane at the time of impact and strongly supported our position against the insurance company.
Another significant tool the Mike Hostilo team utilized was an independent witness who observed the collision. The witness was identified on the police report and confirmed that our client clearly possessed the lane prior to impact. The witness further observed the negligent driver failing to yield the right of way before striking our client’s vehicle. Our office contacted the witness and obtained an affidavit detailing the facts and observations surrounding the collision. We submitted the affidavit to the insurance company to further bolster our liability position and support our client’s claim.
As a result, the insurance carrier ultimately accepted liability, paid for the repairs to our client’s vehicle, and we were able to maximize the value of his bodily injury claim. If you are involved in a collision near a roundabout, photographs of the scene, lane markings, signage, and vehicle positioning can become critical evidence. These cases often come down to proving which driver properly maintained their lane and followed right of way laws.
Another important tip is to obtain information from any independent witness who observed the collision. Independent witnesses can provide statements to the responding officer for the police report and, in some situations, may also execute sworn affidavits detailing what they observed. This evidence can become extremely valuable when an insurance company attempts to deny liability.
*This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends on its own facts, evidence, and applicable law.
About the Author:
Ryan Butz is an Attorney with The Mike Hostilo Law Firm and has handled thousands of personal injury cases since starting with the firm in 2018. He received his undergraduate degree from Georgia College and State University and his Juris Doctorate form Mercer University School of Law.
