 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tice v. American Employers' Insurance Co.8/15/2005
hus changes prior law, which authorized optional UM coverage to be provided in amounts less than a policy's underlying liability limits. Further, the 2001 amendment provides in subsection (a) (1) (A) that the insured may "affirmatively choose" UM coverage in an amount less than his or her policy's underlying liability limits. The proviso, under which the insurer was not required to issue any coverage for any amount greater than the minimum coverage unless the insured requested in writing such higher limits, was thus deleted.
Similar to prior law, the 2001 amendment also provides, in subsection (a) (3), that neither UM coverage in the statutory minimum amounts nor in the increased liability amounts of the underlying policy are applicable "where any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage in writing." And the 2001 amendment to subsection (a) (3) further provides that UM coverage "need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy where the named insured had rejected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued to said insured by the same insurer." And finally the last two sentences of subsection (a) (3), as amended in 2001, now provide: "The amount of coverage need not be increased in a renewal policy from the amount shown on the declarations page for coverage existing prior to July 1, 2001. The amount of coverage need not be increased from the amounts shown on the declarations page on renewal once coverage is issued."
The Tices argue that in enacting the 2001 amendment, the General Assembly intended to provide that the limits of liability chosen by the insured in the underlying policy act as a default provision for UM coverage, so that all new and renewal policies issued on or after the effective date of the amendment would automatically provide UM coverage in an amount equal to the liability limits selected by the insured in their underlying policy (unless the insured should affirmatively choose coverage in a lesser amount). The Tices further argue that they are entitled to the increased limits because American has not, at any time since enactment of the 2000 or 2001 amendments, provided them with notice of their right to have UM coverage limits equal to their increased liability limits of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident.
We find no merit in these arguments. We agree that the intent of the 2001 amendment was to make the liability limits in the insured's underlying policy the default provision when the insured elects UM coverage unless the insured affirmatively chooses UM coverage in a lesser amount. Here, however, the insured in 1996 affirmatively chose UM coverage in the lesser statutorily-required minimum amount. When the statute was amended in 2000 to raise the minimum amount, the Tices' UM coverage was increased accordingly. Nothing in the 2001 amendment required the insurer to notify policyholders who had chosen the statutory minimum amounts of UM coverage that optional UM coverage now must be equal to the liability limits of the underlying policy. In fact, it could be argued that even for those policyholders who had chosen optional UM coverage in amounts less than their underlying liability coverage, " he amount of coverage need not be increased in a renewal policy . . . for coverage existing prior to July 1, 2001." The court did not err in awarding summary judgment to American.
Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.
Page 1 2 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|