We granted Bituminous Insurance Company’s Bituminous’s application for interlocutory review of the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment on Carolyn Ann Coker’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits. At issue is whether Coker provided eyewitness testimony to corroborate her description of how an unknown motorist caused an accident in which her husband, Terry Broom, was killed. Because no eyewitness testimony corroborated Coker’s version of events, Bituminous was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We therefore reverse. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. On appeal from the grant or denial of summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review, and view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Benton v. Benton , 280 Ga. 468, 470 629 SE2d 204 2006. A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff’s case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff’s claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial. A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party’s case; instead, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. Citations omitted; emphasis in original. Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins , 261 Ga. 491 405 SE2d 474 1991.
Coker, the surviving spouse of Terry Broom and administratrix of his estate, filed a complaint, and later an amended complaint, against an unknown driver “John Doe” alleging the following: On April 7, 2009, Mr. Broom was driving a 1994 Freightliner Truck traveling north on U.S. Highway 41 in Catoosa County. Mr. Broom was hauling a load of lumber on the Freightliner. As Mr. Broom approached the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Clark Road in Catoosa County, Defendant stopped suddenly in the path of the Freightliner at the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Clark Road in an attempt to make a left turn from U.S. Highway 41 onto Clark Road. Because Defendant stopped suddenly in front of the Freightliner, Mr. Broom activated the Freightliner’s horn. After sounding the Freightliner’s horn, Mr. Broom applied the Freightliner’s brakes to avoid a collision with Defendant’s vehicle. Rather than make a left turn onto Clark Road from U.S. Highway 41, Defendant continued northward on U.S. Highway 41. After Mr. Broom activated the horn and applied the brakes of the Freightliner, the load of lumber shifted and broke the straps holding the Freightliner’s load in place. When the straps holding the Freightliner’s load broke, the lumber moved forward and crushed the driving cab of the Freightliner into Mr. Broom. When the lumber moved forward and encroached on the driving cab of the Freightliner, Mr. Broom was crushed and killed. Coker asserted that the unknown motorist was negligent,1 and therefore sought to recover under the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy issued by Bituminous covering the Freightliner that Broom operated for his employer. Bituminous moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was an absence of evidence to show that Coker’s description of the accident was corroborated by eyewitness testimony as is required by OCGA § 33-7-11 b 2. The trial court denied Bituminous’s motion for summary judgment, but granted a certificate of immediate review.
