GEICO Indemnity Co. v. Smith
338 Ga. App. 455
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On October 3, 2010, Dana Smith (a passenger) was injured in a collision; she was insured under her mother’s GEICO policy.
- The policy required notice to GEICO “as soon as possible after an accident” as a condition for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.
- Smith’s attorney did not notify GEICO until March 23, 2011—nearly six months after the collision.
- Smith sued the tortfeasor on September 28, 2011; GEICO was served as UM carrier, answered, and moved for summary judgment based on untimely notice.
- The trial court denied GEICO’s summary judgment motion; GEICO obtained interlocutory review and appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the six‑month delay was unreasonable as a matter of law under the policy’s prompt‑notice requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s six‑month delay violated the policy’s “as soon as possible after an accident” notice requirement | Smith: delay excused because her attorney initially believed UM coverage did not apply and only later notified GEICO | GEICO: policy required prompt notice regardless of attorney’s (mis)understanding of coverage | Court: Held GEICO entitled to summary judgment; six‑month delay unreasonable as a matter of law |
| Whether misunderstanding about other available coverage excuses late notice | Smith: delay justified while relying on belief that other liability insurance would cover loss | GEICO: insured must notify insurer regardless of belief about other coverage | Court: Held such misunderstanding does not excuse failure to comply with plain policy terms |
| Whether GEICO is estopped from enforcing notice provision because of insurer’s participation in the litigation | Smith: GEICO’s involvement in the suit estops it from asserting notice defense | GEICO: estoppel not established; trial court did not rule | Court: Declined to address estoppel issue on appeal because trial court did not rule on it |
| Whether recent authority (Progressive) changes the result | Smith: Progressive Mountain compels different result | GEICO: Progressive distinguishable; Lankford controls | Court: Denied reconsideration; Lankford and related precedent control; Progressive not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Cobb, 284 Ga. App. 303 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Plantation Pipeline Co. v. Royal Indem. Co., 245 Ga. App. 23 (notice allows prompt investigation and defense)
- Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hipps, 224 Ga. App. 756 (insured’s misunderstanding does not excuse policy notice requirement)
- Edwards v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 129 Ga. App. 306 (five‑month delay held unreasonable)
- Lankford v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 307 Ga. App. 12 (notice required as soon as possible after accident; insured cannot wait until concerned that policy limits are exceeded)
- Progressive Mountain Ins. Co. v. Bishop, 338 Ga. App. 115 (distinguished on facts; different notice wording)