Dillard, Presiding Judge. Melissa Knight appeals from the trial court’s grant of Safety National Casualty Corporation’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, Knight argues the trial court erred in granting Safety National’s motion when (1) she was both a statutory insured and a named insured under its uninsured motorist (UM) policy; (2) she was operating an automobile covered by the UM policy; (3) it is judicially estopped from disclaiming coverage; and (4) the policy is ambiguous. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm the grant of Safety National’s motion to dismiss.[1] Viewing the pleadings de novo in the light most favorable to Knight as the nonmoving party,[2] the record shows that following an automobile accident, Knight sued Trey Prescott Hunley and several John Doe entities. She sought to recover under UM policies from, among other entities, her employer’s insurer, Safety National. The accident occurred while Knight was on a work-related errand for her employer, Waffle House, Inc. Hunley ran a red light and struck the side of Knight’s vehicle, causing permanent injuries to Knight. Knight sought to recover a total of “not less than $500,000.00″ and attorney fees due to general and special damages for those injuries, medical expenses in excess of $16,000, and lost wages. In response, Safety National answered and filed a cross-claim against Hunley and Knight’s insurance carriers. Among other things, Safety National asserted that Knight was barred from further recovery from her employer because she accepted worker’s compensation benefits. It also denied that the relevant UM policy covered Knight. Additionally, Safety National attached a certified copy of Waffle House’s insurance policy to its answer. Thereafter, Safety National moved to dismiss Knight’s claim for UM coverage based on failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted—i.e., that Knight was not covered by Waffle House’s UM policy. In support, Safety National cited to both the language of the policy and the definition of “insured” in OCGA § 33-7-11. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court agreed with Safety National and granted its motion to dismiss on April 10, 2019. Knight timely appealed the trial court’s April, 10, 2019 order, but we dismissed the case because she failed to follow the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Upon return to the trial court, Knight filed a consent motion for the dismissal of Hunley and the entry of a final judgment. Specifically, Knight requested that the court “dismiss the claims against Defendant Trey Prescott Hunley, and enter final judgment in this case, so that an appropriate appeal may follow the entry of final judgment and dismissal of Mr. Hunley.” On March 29, 2021, the trial court issued an order in response to the consent motion, which noted, in pertinent part: “All claims against Mr. Hunley are hereby dismissed with prejudice, and this Order shall act as a final judgment in this case as provided by [OCGA] §§ 9-11-54 and 5-6-34, so that the parties may pursue any appellate options they may have from the entry of this Order granting final judgment.” This appeal follows. Before reaching the merits, we must first address Safety National’s contention that Knight’s appeal is a nonstarter because she failed to satisfy a condition precedent before seeking to collect damages from it as a UM carrier.[3] Specifically, Safety National argues that Knight must first obtain a judgment against Hunley before collecting from a UM carrier. And while the trial court’s March 29, 2021 order granted a “final judgment in this case” for purposes of OCGA § 9-11-54, Safety National asserts that Knight dismissed her claims against Hunley with prejudice and therefore cannot now recover a judgment against him. So, because Knight cannot recover an actual judgment against Hunley, Safety National maintains she cannot satisfy this prerequisite to recovery from a UM carrier. We agree with Safety National that Knight fails to satisfy the condition precedent of first obtaining a judgment against Hunley as required by Kent v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.[4] and its progeny. In Kent, the plaintiffs executed a limited release to settle the case against the defendant driver and then went on to voluntarily dismiss all of their claims against the driver with prejudice.[5] This Court later determined that because of the voluntary dismissal, the plaintiffs were “prevented from establishing . . . liability and securing a judgment against [the driver].”[6] And because the plaintiffs could not establish the defendant driver’s legal liability, they were barred from recovering UM benefits from their insurance company.[7] In addition, and importantly, we rejected the plaintiffs’ argument in Kent that the dismissal with prejudice should be set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) (2) due to “[f]raud, accident, or mistake,” reasoning that any mistake was “the result of [the plaintiffs'] own negligence or fault.”[8] And a mistaken determination regarding the legal effect of a voluntary dismissal with prejudice against a defendant driver cannot be “ground[s] for either defensive or affirmative relief.”[9] So too here.[10] Indeed, even Knight agrees with Safety National that Kent “is problematic for this appeal under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d).” Knight is right to do so, especially in light of the explicit language of Safety National’s UM policy that covers “compensatory damages which the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle . . . .”[11] Even so, Knight attempts to distinguish Kent by arguing that she and Hunley did not “intend” for the trial court’s final order to operate as a voluntary dismissal with prejudice but merely as a way to permit the case to proceed on appeal. As a result, she insists Hunley’s dismissal with prejudice was a “clerical error,” informs this Court that she has asked or will ask the court to “exercise its discretion to correct the clerical error by Knight and Hunley pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (g),” and requests that we allow her appeal to proceed on the merits.[12] We find this argument unpersuasive. Whether by operation of law or the relevant policy language, Knight was required to obtain a judgment against Hunley before seeking to collect UM benefits from Safety National.[13] And while Knight claims the dismissal of Hunley with prejudice resulted from a “clerical error,”[14] this is an error she was aware of and failed to rectify prior to filing her appeal, which then divested the trial court of jurisdiction over this matter.[15] Moreover, Knight’s reliance on Sanson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.[16] and Mullinax v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.[17] is misplaced. In Sanson, a party inadvertently sent a full release and dismissal with prejudice even though the parties intended for the execution of a limited release with no dismissal.[18] And as soon as the mistake was recognized, the party notified the other litigants and filed a motion to rescind the dismissal under OCGA § 9-11-60 (g) as a clerical mistake.[19] We then concluded the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to rescind when the facts “demonstrate[d] that a clerical error was made by mutual mistake of the parties, resulting in an erroneous judgment—the dismissal with prejudice.”[20] Similarly, in Mullinax, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice for the defendant driver after executing a limited release.[21] Then, after the UM coverage provider filed a motion for summary judgment on this and other grounds, the plaintiffs filed a motion to correct and rescind the voluntary dismissal with prejudice under OCGA § 9-11-60 (g).[22] The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion, concluding they had committed an error of law.[23] We reversed, holding that the circumstances were no different than those in Sanson.[24] Suffice it to say, neither Sanson nor Mullinax have any applicability here. Knight filed her notice of appeal with full knowledge that Hunley was dismissed “with prejudice.” And it was not until oral argument before this Court that Knight apparently realized the impact of the trial court’s order. Thus, unlike the plaintiffs in Sanson and Mullinax, Knight did not file a OCGA § 9-11-60 (g) motion with the trial court prior to filing her notice of appeal, which divested that court of jurisdiction. So, because the trial court’s final judgment dismissed the claims against Hunley with prejudice and that court is now without jurisdiction to even consider a OCGA § 9-11-60 motion to rectify what Knight attempts to characterize as a clerical error, we agree she is unable to satisfy the condition precedent of obtaining a judgment against Hunley before suing to collect UM benefits from Safety National. For all these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the case against Safety National and need not reach the merits of Knight’s claims of error on appeal. Judgment affirmed. Mercier and Pinson, JJ., concur.
