Harold Dwayne Sharpe v. Great Midwest Insurance Company
344 Ga. App. 208
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 3, 2013 Harold Sharpe, driving his employer McLendon Enterprises’ truck, was rear-ended by Phillip Gray; Harold sustained a neck injury.
- The Sharpes carried two personal policies with Georgia Farm Bureau (GFB) providing UM/UIM coverage; McLendon had a GMIC policy covering employees using the truck with UM/UIM coverage.
- Sharpes sued Gray on Mar. 9, 2015 and served GFB with complaint and summons soon after; they served GMIC only with a copy of the complaint (no summons) on Apr. 3, 2015.
- GFB moved for summary judgment asserting the Sharpes failed to provide notice within the policy’s 90-day requirement; the trial court granted GFB’s motion.
- GMIC moved to dismiss for insufficient service under OCGA § 33-7-11(d) and later moved for summary judgment asserting untimely notice; the trial court granted dismissal and ultimately granted summary judgment for GMIC.
- The Sharpes appealed; the appellate court affirmed dismissal for lack of proper service on GMIC and affirmed both insurers’ summary judgment rulings for failure to provide timely notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GMIC was properly served under OCGA § 33-7-11(d) | Sharpes: serving GMIC with complaint as notice satisfied statutory service requirement | GMIC: statute requires service as if insurer were named party, including a summons directed to insurer | Court: service was insufficient (no summons to GMIC); dismissal proper |
| Whether GFB’s UM coverage was barred by late notice (policy: notify within 90 days) | Sharpes: delay justified because vehicle was employer-owned and they didn’t know to notify their own carrier | GFB: policy condition precedent; notice was untimely (≈6 months) and no justification | Court: notice provision clear; delay unreasonable as a matter of law; summary judgment for GFB |
| Whether GMIC’s coverage was barred by untimely notice (policy requires "prompt" notice) | Sharpes: not named insured; unaware they needed to notify GMIC, so delay justified | GMIC: policy requires prompt notice; Sharpes waited ~15 months—unreasonable and unexcused | Court: 15-month delay not "prompt" as matter of law; summary judgment for GMIC |
| Whether plaintiffs’ ignorance of policy terms excuses late notice | Sharpes: ignorance of insurer identity or policy terms excused delay | Insurers: ignorance or misplaced confidence insufficient to avoid contract terms absent fraud/overreaching | Court: ignorance not a valid excuse; insurers prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (establishing de novo review for summary judgment appeals)
- Bonner v. Bonner, 272 Ga. 545 (proper service of summons is necessary for court jurisdiction)
- Lankford v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 307 Ga. App. 12 (notice provision as condition precedent to coverage)
- Burkett v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 278 Ga. App. 681 (multi-year delay held not "prompt" notice as matter of law)
- Protective Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 256 Ga. 713 (ignorance of insurer identity does not excuse failure to give prompt notice)