Mаrtha and George Kent sued Crystal D. Holloway alleging they were injured in a motor vehicle collision with an automobile operated by Holloway. The Kents served their uninsurеd/underinsured motorist carrier, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). State Farm answered. Subsequently, the Kents executed a limited liability release rеlieving Holloway of liability pursuant to OCGA § 33-24-41.1, and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims against Holloway. State Farm then moved for judgment on the pleadings contending that the Kents’ dismissal with prejudice of their claims against Holloway barred them from recovering damages from State Farm. In response, the Kents moved to set aside the dismissal arguing that it resulted from both the Kents’ and Holloway’s mistaken interpretation of the legal effect that the dismissal would have on their suit against State Farm. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Kents’ motion to set aside the dismissal. The Kents appealed, and for the following reasons, we affirm.
1. The Kents assert thаt OCGA §§ 33-7-12 and 33-24-41.1 allow them to pursue an action against State Farm, even though they executed a limited release and settled a claim against the defendant *565 driver, Hollоway, and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims against Holloway. We disagree.
Pursuant to the language of OCGA § 33-24-41.1, the Kents defeated their ability to recover damages frоm their underinsured motorist carrier, State Farm, by voluntarily dismissing with prejudice their claims against the defendant driver rather than merely executing a limited liability release against hеr. OCGA § 33-24-41.1 provides that the injured party may execute a limited release of the tortfeasor and its insurer, relieving them from all liability, and “still retain the right to pursue his own insurer for othеr available coverage,” here, underinsured motorist coverage.
Rodgers v. St. Paul Fire &c. Ins. Co.,
Here, the Kents executed a limited liability release against Holloway, but nevertheless voluntarily dismissed her with prejudice. Thus, although Hollоway remained liable to the Kents in the amount of available insurance coverage, the Kents are prevented from establishing that liability and securing a judgment agаinst Holloway. Because the Kents cannot determine Holloway’s legal liability, they are barred from recovering underinsured motorist benefits from State Farm. Rodgers, supra; Boles, supra. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted State Farm’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
2. The Kents also challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion to set aside the dismissal with prejudice. The Kents contend that pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) (2) the dismissal was a mistake, and therefore, the trial court should have set it aside.
We note initially, that a voluntary dismissаl with prejudice which has been accomplished by the parties filing a stipulation of dis
*566
missal with the clerk of the court operates as an adjudication on the mеrits and bars the right to bring another action on the same claim for purposes of res judicata.
Fowler v. Vineyard,
A trial court’s decision regarding a motion to set aside a judgment will not be reversed absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion.
Young Constr. v. Old Hickory House #3,
In the instant case, there is no evidence of a mistake that was “unmixed with the negligence or fault of [the Kents].” Rather, the mistake asserted by the Kents is the result of their own negligence or fault. The Kents’ mistaken determination regarding the effect a voluntary dismissal with prejudice against the defendant driver would have on their right to sue State Farm was due to their own ignorance of the law. Inasmuch as there is no evidence of record that this erroneous determination was induced by deception or fraud, it сannot be the basis for a motion to set aside the dismissal. Id. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the dismissal based upon the ground asserted.
We note that,
Morgan v. Starks,
3. The Kents further argue that equity requires that the voluntary dismissal with prejudice be set aside, relying on OCGA §§ 23-2-20 and 23-2-21.
OCGA § 23-2-20 provides that “[a]n accident relievable in equity is an occurrence, not the result of negligence or misconduct of the party seeking relief in relation to a contract, as was not anticipated by the parties when the contract was entered into, which gives an undue advantage to one of them over another in a court of law.” OCGA § 23-2-21 provides that a mistake, which is either of law or of fact, is relievable in equity when the mistake is “some unintentional act, omission, or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced confidence.” Relief pursuant to OCGA § 23-2-21 “must be mutual, or else [be a] mistake on the part of one to the contract and fraud on the part of the other.”
Yablon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
We conclude these statutes do not apply in this case. Clearly, these statutes only allow equitable relief from mistakes of law or of fact that were made in the formation of a contract. In this instance, the only contract of record is the limited liability release. The Kents’ only contention is that equity requires the setting aside of the dismissal with prejudice based upon accident or mistake. Because the dismissal with prejudice is not a contract, we conclude that the Kents’ reliance on OCGA §§ 23-2-20 and 23-2-21 is misplaced.
Even if the dismissal were treated as a contract and these statutes were applicable, there is no evidence of record that there was а mutual accident or mistake of fact in the execution of the dismissal. Nor is there evidence that the accident or mistake was made without the Kents’ negligence or fault. To the contrary, the Kents concede that the accident or mistake was found in their counsel’s misinterpretation of the legal effect of the voluntаry dismissal with prejudice. However, they argue that Holloway had the same mistaken interpretation, and thus because the mistake was mutual, equity demands the dismissal be set asidе. There is no evidence of record that Holloway shared in the Kents’ determination of the effect of the dismissal. Consequently, equity does not demand the dismissal with prejudice be set aside. OCGA §§ 23-2-20 and 23-2-21. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Kents’ motion to set aside the dismissal. See Young Constr., supra.
Judgment affirmed.