Background - Jenna Newstrom (22) was injured in a California car accident while driving a car registered and insured under her parents’ Georgia policy with Owners Insurance Company. - The policy was issued in Georgia and listed the vehicle’s territory as Hall County, Georgia; the car was purchased and primarily used in California by Jenna. - Jenna settled with the other driver for policy limits and signed a general release; she then demanded underinsured/uninsured motorist (UM) arbitration under California law, which Owners declined. - The Newstroms sued in Georgia seeking declarations that Owners must provide UM coverage and participate in California arbitration; Owners counterclaimed that the general release bars UM recovery. - The Georgia trial court granted summary judgment to Owners and denied the Newstroms’ motion; the appeal raised whether Georgia or California law governs the effect of the release and arbitration demand. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Choice of law: whether Georgia or California law governs UM procedural questions | Newstroms: California law applies because accident and use occurred in California and California requires UM arbitration | Owners: Georgia law governs procedural/remedial matters because action brought in Georgia | Georgia law applies; procedural/remedial questions governed by forum law (Georgia) | | Effect of general release on UM claim | Newstroms: General release does not bar their UM claim; California rules permit arbitration and allow recovery despite release | Owners: General release extinguishes UM claim because UM is derivative and requires tortfeasor liability | Under Georgia law, a general release bars UM recovery; limited release required to preserve UM claim | | Duty to participate in California arbitration | Newstroms: Owners must submit to California statutory arbitration under Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.2(f) | Owners: No duty because Georgia law governs and arbitration demand under California law is not controlling | No duty to arbitrate under California law in Georgia forum; arbitration demand not controlling given choice-of-law ruling | | Summary judgment entitlement | Newstroms: Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment for Owners | Owners: No factual dispute; legal effect of release disposes of claim | Summary judgment affirmed for Owners; Newstroms’ summary judgment denied | ### Key Cases Cited Allstate Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 218 Ga. App. 552 (procedural/remedial choice-of-law governed by forum law) Carter v. Progressive Mountain Ins., 295 Ga. 487 (limited release required to preserve UM claim) Moon v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Ga., 253 Ga. App. 506 (UM claims derivative; general release bars recovery) Landrum v. Infiniti Safeguard Ins. Co., 318 Ga. App. 701 (standard of review for summary judgment in insurance cases) Wade v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Co., 324 Ga. App. 491 (application of limited-release requirement to preserve UM claims) Rodgers v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 228 Ga. App. 499 (derivative nature of UM claims)