Doyle, Presiding Judge. After becoming injured while attempting to inflate a tire on his employer’s truck, Joey Hazelwood pursued an underinsured/uninsured[1] motorist (“UM”) claim against his automobile insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Company.[2] Following the grant of summary judgment to Auto-Owners, Hazelwood appeals, contending that the trial court erred by ruling that he was not entitled to coverage because he was injured by a vehicle furnished for his regular use. Finding no error, we affirm.“On appeal from a grant of a motion for summary judgment, we review the evidence de novo in the light most favorable to the nonmovant to determine whether a genuine issue of fact remains and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[3] The relevant facts in this case are undisputed. Hazelwood was employed by Michael Rose d/b/a/ Rose Logging (collectively “Rose”) and regularly drove a large logging truck owned by Rose and used in Rose’s business. Hazelwood drove the truck five days per week, and although he typically returned it at the end of his shift, he was not required to return the truck to Rose at any particular time, and he had kept it overnight at least twice. Late one afternoon, as Hazelwood was on duty driving the truck from a logging site to a wood yard, two of the truck’s tires blew out. Hazelwood pulled over on the side of a two-lane mountain road and contacted Rose, who arrived with a replacement tire to allow them to slowly drive the truck to a safer area to properly fix both tires. After the tire was mounted on the wheel, Rose partially inflated it and turned it over to Hazelwood to continue the inflation. Hazelwood resumed the inflation, and the tire blew off the wheel, striking Hazelwood and causing him injuries.Rose was covered by an automobile insurance policy, and Hazelwood was paid the $100,000 policy limit by Rose’s insurance carrier. Because Hazelwood’s damages exceeded that amount, he sued Rose and served Auto-Owners, his own insurance provider, so he could pursue a UM claim under his policy.[4] Auto-Owners answered and moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the truck at issue was not an “uninsured motor vehicle” and Hazelwood failed to comply with his policy’s notice requirement. Following a hearing, the trial court ruled that a fact question remains on the issue of notice, but the court granted summary judgment on the ground that the truck was not an “uninsured motor vehicle” as that term is defined in the policy and under applicable law. Hazelwood now appeals. Hazelwood’s insurance policy obligates Auto-Owners to pay Hazelwood certain damages that he is otherwise legally entitled to recover from the owner of an “uninsured automobile.” Based on this, Hazelwood seeks recovery of the damages he alleges are due from Rose in excess of Rose’s coverage limits.[5] Hazelwood’s policy excludes from the definition of an uninsured automobile vehicles that are “furnished to or available for regular use of [Hazelwood] . . . .” Hazelwood argues that this exclusion violates the statutory requirement for Auto-Owners to provide UM coverage under OCGA § 33-7-11 (a).[6] In light of the nature of the truck at issue in this case, this argument fails.OCGA § 33-7-11 (a) provides: No automobile liability policy . . . shall be issued or delivered in this state to the owner of such vehicle . . . unless it contains an endorsement or provisions undertaking to pay the insured damages . . . of an insured under the named insured’s policy sustained from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, within [certain specified] limits. . . .[7]
