Gail Thurman, a postal carrier for the United States Postal Service, was injured on the job when her postal truck was struck by a vehicle driven by appellee Mamie Brown. After filing suit against Brown for more than Brown’s insurance policy limits of $100,000, Thurman and her husband settled with Brown for $95,554.19, Brown’s policy limits reduced by the amount paid to the U.S.P.S. for damage to the postal truck $4445.81. Because Thurman had received payments for lost wages and medical expenses from her employer’s workers’ compensation carrier pursuant to the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § § 8101 et seq., and from her employer’s group medical insurance carrier pursuant to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § § 8901 et seq., those two carriers claimed subrogation rights from the proceeds of the settlement with Brown. Since “no court . . .or. . . attorney shall pay or distribute to the beneficiary the proceeds of such suit or settlement without first satisfying or assuring the satisfaction of the interest of the United States” 5 U.S.C.A. § 8132, Brown’s liability insurance carrier issued three checks: one to the Thurmans, one to Thurman and the workers’ compensation carrier as co-payees, and one to Thurman and the group medical insurance carrier as co-payees. As a result, the workers’ compensation carrier and the medical insurance carrier received $34,666.32 from Brown’s insurer and the Thurmans received $60,887.87. The Thurmans then turned to their uninsured motorist UM carrier, appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., contending tortfeasor Brown was underinsured since their $75,000 UM State Farm coverage exceeded the net proceeds $60,887.87 they had received from Brown’s liability carrier. The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Thurman v. State Farm , 260 Ga. App. 338 579 SE2d 746 2003. We granted the Thurmans’s petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the parties to address whether “funds from an insurance policy that are used to cover the subrogation claims of the federal government, as claimant’s employer, are counted in the calculation of ‘available coverages’ for purposes of the Georgia Uninsured Motorists Statute, OCGA § 33-7-11 et seq.”
Uninsured motorist coverage can be triggered by the involvement in the incident of an underinsured motor vehicle. OCGA § 33-7-11 b 1 D ii defines an uninsured motor vehicle as one where the tortfeasor has liability insurance but the “available coverages” are “less than the limits of the uninsured motorist coverage provided under the insured’s insurance policy. . . .” The statute goes on to define “available coverages” as “the limits of coverage of the tortfeasor’s liability insurance less any amounts by which the maximum amounts payable under such limits of coverage have, by reason of payment of other claims or otherwise , been reduced below the limits of coverage.” Id. Emphasis added. The issue for determination is whether the subrogation payments made by the tortfeasor’s liability insurer pursuant to 5 USCA § 8132 to the workers’ compensation carrier and pursuant to the contractual provision of the group medical insurance carrier which provided benefits to the injured federal employee constituted “payment of other claims or otherwise,” thereby reducing the amount of available coverage under tortfeasor Brown’s insurance policy to less than the amount of UM coverage the Thurmans had with State Farm.
