Roberson v. Leone
315 Ga. App. 459
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Era Roberson and Justin Roberson sue Robert Leone for personal injury after Era’s SUV was rear‑ended (Dec. 9, 2004) and seek UM benefits from State Farm.
- State Farm policy for Roberson Farms began July 1, 2001 and was renewed annually through 2004, with UM coverage increasing to $25,000 in 2001 and remaining so.
- Policy history shows each renewal identified the insured, coverage, and included a form where Wendell Roberson Farms acknowledged selecting minimum UM limits.
- In November 2004 a new policy number appeared (F040295-11C) with changes noted as a replacement, though premiums and vehicles changed modestly.
- Leone’s insurer paid $100,000 to settle against Leone; State Farm moves for summary judgment arguing UM is $25,000 due to renewal, not $1,000,000.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm; on appeal, court analyzes whether the 2004 policy is a renewal or a new policy under OCGA § 33-7-11(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the November 2004 policy a renewal or a new policy for UM purposes? | Policy is new; no written UM election; UM equals $1,000,000. | Policy is renewal; UM remains the previously selected lower amount ($25,000). | Renewal; UM remains $25,000 per person. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beasley v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 293 Ga.App. 8 (2008) (renewal logic; written election not required when renewal applies)
- Borders v. Global Ins. Co., 208 Ga.App. 480 (1993) (subsequent policies serve renewal purpose; replacement wording not conclusive)
- Litton v. Infinity Gen. Ins. Co., 308 Ga.App. 497 (2011) (UM limits follow insured’s written selection in renewal)
- Beasley v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 293 Ga.App. 8 (2008) (renewal interpretation under OCGA 33-7-11)