Lankford v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
307 Ga. App. 12
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Lankford, employed as a truck driver, was involved in a collision with Kaucky on Sept. 15, 2006.
- Kaucky carried a State Farm liability policy with $50,000 per-person limits; Lankford had three separate State Farm UM policies.
- Three days after the accident, State Farm wrote to Lankford referencing Kaucky's policy and the accident.
- Around Oct. 20, 2006, Lankford’s employer notified State Farm it would seek subrogation for medical/indemnity reimbursements and referenced Kaucky’s policy.
- February 2, 2007, State Farm issued a $1,616.88 check for repairs citing Kaucky as the insured; Lankford later underwent lumbar fusion in July 2007.
- Lankford first provided written notice of the accident and UM claim on Sept. 5, 2008, almost two years after the accident; suit was served Sept. 8, 2008; State Farm moved for summary judgment asserting untimely written notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to provide written notice was justified despite policy condition precedent. | Lankford argues delay is justified by actual notice and lack of prejudice. | State Farm argues notice was required to be given as soon as reasonably possible and delay forfeits coverage. | No; unreasonable delay forecloses coverage as a matter of law. |
| Whether State Farm had actual notice via Kaucky’s notice to the insurer. | Lankford contends insurer had notice through Kaucky's policy handling. | Notice to Kaucky’s policy does not relieve Lankford’s separate notice obligation. | Insurer’s notice to Kaucky did not satisfy Lankford’s notice requirement. |
| Whether Lankford’s September 2007 contact with the agent satisfied the notice requirement. | Lankford claims notice was provided when he spoke with his agent about the claim. | Conversation in 2007 was too late and not justified for delay. | Delayed September 2007 notice insufficient to excuse almost two-year delay. |
| Whether State Farm waived its right to require separate notice by continuing to service Kaucky's claim. | No waiver; insurer could rely on its notice provisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Park Pride of Atlanta v. City of Atlanta, 246 Ga.App. 689, 541 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. App. 2000) (unreasonable delay may foreclose coverage under notice provision)
- Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hipps, 224 Ga.App. 756, 481 S.E.2d 876 (Ga. App. 1997) (notice language required; failure to comply can forfeit coverage)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Walker, 254 Ga.App. 315, 562 S.E.2d 267 (Ga. App. 2002) (ignorance of policy right does not excuse delay in notice)
- Royer v. Murphy, 277 Ga.App. 150, 625 S.E.2d 544 (Ga. App. 2006) (two-year notice delay deemed unreasonable)
- Johnson v. Protective Ins. Co., 256 Ga. 713, 352 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 1987) (notice as soon as practicable; some cases allow oral/less formal notice under different language)