Wade v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Co.
324 Ga. App. 491
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Bernard Wade was injured in a multi-vehicle accident and sued several drivers and related parties; he also notified his UM carrier, Allstate.
- Wade settled with James Bruce by accepting Bruce’s liability policy limits and executing a limited release; he also settled with Bergh, Froman, and Froman’s employer for less than their policy limits and gave them a general release.
- Wade’s Allstate policy provided UM (underinsured motorist) coverage with an exhaustion clause requiring exhaustion of "the limits of liability for all liability protection... applicable" before UM payments.
- Allstate moved for summary judgment, arguing Wade had not exhausted the liability limits for all named defendants and thus was not entitled to UM benefits; the trial court granted Allstate’s motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that factual issues remain about Wade’s total damages and apportionment of fault, and Wade may be entitled to UM benefits to the extent Bruce is underinsured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UM carrier must await exhaustion of limits for every named defendant before UM pays | Wade: UM available if at least one tortfeasor (Bruce) exhausted and remains underinsured | Allstate: policy requires exhaustion of limits for all applicable liability protections before paying UM | Reversed: court held exhaustion need not be across all named defendants where apportionment may show Bruce underinsured; factual apportionment required |
| Meaning and effect of "applicable" liability coverage in exhaustion clause | Wade: "Applicable" depends on apportionment of fault and which policies apply to his apportioned damages | Allstate: "applicable" means all named defendants’ liability coverage should be exhausted | Held: term ambiguous in context; must determine which coverages are "applicable" by apportioning damages per OCGA §51-12-33 |
| Effect of Wade’s general releases/settlements with other defendants on UM claim | Wade: settlements with other defendants who may bear little fault should not bar UM claim against Allstate for Bruce’s uncovered share | Allstate: Wade’s failure to exhaust other defendants’ policies (and general releases) bars UM recovery | Held: general releases with defendants who may have little fault do not automatically preclude UM recovery as to Bruce; factfinder must apportion fault to determine uncovered losses |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate before apportionment and damage determination | Wade: summary judgment premature because damages and fault apportionment unresolved | Allstate: policy language is clear; summary judgment proper | Held: summary judgment improper — factual issues remain about damages and apportionment, so remand for determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 316 Ga. App. 97 (explaining contract/construction rules for insurance policies)
- Alea London Ltd. v. Lee, 286 Ga. App. 390 (using dictionary meaning where policy term undefined)
- Kent v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 233 Ga. App. 564 (settlement under limited release can satisfy exhaustion and preserve UM claim)
- Daniels v. Johnson, 270 Ga. 289 (plaintiff satisfied exhaustion by settling for underinsured tortfeasor's limits)
- Sanborn v. Farley, 192 Ga. App. 376 (discussing method of calculating reduced UM coverage; distinguishable here)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Adams, 288 Ga. 315 (purpose of UM statute to protect insureds for actual loss)
- Broda v. Dziwura, 286 Ga. 507 (law favors compromise and settlements should not unduly prejudice the settling plaintiff)
- Rodgers v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 228 Ga. App. 499 (general release after settlement can bar subsequent UM recovery)