In this uninsured motorist “UM” case, Yolanda Durrah appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing her renewal action against Carmen Hernandez and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. “We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss under the de novo standard of review.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Sadi Holdings v. Lib Properties , 293 Ga. App. 23 666 SE2d 446 2008. The record shows that following a car accident on May 11, 2006, Durrah timely filed a suit for personal injuries against Hernandez and State Farm, her UM carrier. Durrah personally served State Farm and served Hernandez by publication because she could not locate Hernandez.
Durrah later voluntarily dismissed her complaint without prejudice and then refiled it against Hernandez and State Farm within six months, but after the expiration of the statute of limitation. She personally served State Farm with her renewal action, but did not serve Hernandez with it in any manner. According to the trial court’s order,1 both Hernandez and State Farm moved to dismiss Durrah’s renewal action. The court granted Hernandez’s motion to dismiss based upon Durrah’s failure to serve Hernandez personally in the original action. Based upon its dismissal of Hernandez, the trial court concluded that Durrah could not meet her obligation to obtain a judgment against Hernandez as a condition precedent to her right to recover against her UM carrier and dismissed Durrah’s renewal action against State Farm.
