Abrohams v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Agency

The insurer's umbrella policy, which specifically excluded UM coverage, was void, since it is contrary to O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11's requirement that no "automobile liability policy or motor vehicle policy" may be issued in this state, unless it contains specific provisions for UM coverage, or lesser/no coverage is elected in writing.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Richard Abrohams and his minor son were injured in a motor vehicle collision with an underinsured motorist. After the collision, the Abrohams sought underinsured motorist “UM” benefits from Atlantic Mutual for injuries under both an automobile policy and an umbrella policy. Although the UM coverage provided by the automobile policy was not in dispute, Atlantic Mutual argued that the umbrella policy did not provide UM coverage. Atlantic Mutual filed a declaratory judgment action to resolve whether it was required to provide UM benefits to the Abrohams under their umbrella policy pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11. Atlantic Mutual further maintained that even if the trial court concluded that OCGA § 33-7-11 did require insurers to provide UM coverage in umbrella policies, the statute did not apply in this case because the Abrohams’ policy was a renewal policy. The Abrohams disagreed and filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted Atlantic Mutual’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Abrohams’ motion for summary judgment. The Abrohams appealed the trial court’s ruling. For reasons that follow, we reverse and remand. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, warrant judgment as a matter of law.1 Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we review the evidence and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmovant.2

The undisputed facts establish that Richard Abrohams and his minor son, David, were injured in an automobile collision on December 28, 2002. David Abrohams’ injuries are permanent in nature, and his resulting expenses currently total $250,000. The parties specifically stipulated that liability for the collision rested solely with the driver of the vehicle that collided with the Abrohams.

Abrohams v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Agency

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report