Blalock v. Southern Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 72934,72934 |
| Citation | 180 Ga.App. 319,349 S.E.2d 32 |
| Parties | BLALOCK et al. v. SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Timothy A. Siler, Atlanta, Craig R. Patterson, Decatur, for appellant.
Terry L. Shaw, Jonesboro, Wade K. Copeland, Richard B. Eason, Jr., Douglas A. Wilde, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellants' eighteen-year-old daughter was fatally injured in an automobile accident. They filed a wrongful death action against the uninsured driver of the auto in which their daughter had been a passenger and against the driver of another involved auto and sought to recover uninsured motorist benefits under their own policy with appellee insurance company. The company moved for summary judgment on the ground that Mr. Blalock had rejected uninsured motorist coverage in writing in his application for insurance. The motion was granted.
The Blalocks contend summary judgment was improper because questions of fact exist as to uninsured motorist coverage in that the application form is insufficient to inform him of the right to such coverage, its nature, and the legal consequence of rejection. Also, that the form fails "to show a clear and knowing" rejection of such coverage, and that he was unaware of his entitlement to such coverage.
OCGA § 33-7-11(a) provides that
The application for insurance here clearly shows a written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage which complies with the statutory requirement. "Uninsured motorists" is listed under the section at the top of the marked "optional coverages," and the second, "reject" box next to it had been checked rather than the first, "accept" box. In the middle of the page, where coverages, limits of liability, and premiums are listed, the premium box for "Uninsured Motorists" is blank and no selection among three liability amounts is designated. Plaintiffs do not deny that Mr. Blalock checked or authorized checking the rejection box or that he signed the form at the bottom. At the bottom of the application immediately above appellant's signature, is a statement in capital letters that "the undersigned, by his/her signature, hereon, certifies that the coverages listed in the 'optional coverages' section of this application have been explained and offered to him/her, and that this application accurately reflects his/her wishes in that regard." What is more, the policy's declaration sheet shows that no premium was charged for uninsured motorist coverage and the "limits of liability" is blank. The sheet states: "The insurance afforded is only with respect to such of the following coverages ... as are indicated by specific premium charge or charges." Thus, summary judgment was proper. Barnes v. Mangham, 153 Ga.App. 540, 265 S.E.2d 867 (1980); Whatley v. Universal Security Ins. Co., 177 Ga.App. 424, 339 S.E.2d 398 (1986).
Plaintiffs' reliance upon Associated Indem. Corp. v. Sermons, 175 Ga.App. 513, 333 S.E.2d 902 (1985), and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romero v. Dairyland Ins. Co.
...Ins. Co., 106 Ariz. 75, 471 P.2d 271 (1970); Baum v. Allstate Ins. Co., 496 So.2d 201 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986); Blalock v. Southern Ins. Co., 180 Ga.App. 319, 349 S.E.2d 32 (1986); daSilva v. Equitable Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 106 R.I. 729, 263 A.2d 100 (1970). We find these cases only stand f......
-
Roberson v. 21ST Century Nat'l Ins. Co.
...39, 357 S.E.2d 859 (1987) (rejection of uninsured motorist coverage by letter during policy term effective); Blalock v. Southern Ins. Co., 180 Ga.App. 319, 349 S.E.2d 32 (1986) (checking box to reject uninsured motorist coverage effective); Whatley v. Universal Security Ins. Co., 177 Ga.App......
-
Lane v. K-Mart Corp., K-MART
...the errors enumerated by appellant were without merit, we do not deem them to be frivolous.' [Cit.]" Blalock v. Southern Ins. Co., 180 Ga.App. 319, 320, 349 S.E.2d 32 (1986). Judgments DEEN, P.J., concurs in Divisions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and in judgment. SOGNIER, J., concurs specially. SOGNIER, ......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Barnes, AUTO-OWNERS
...288 S.E.2d 58 (1981). Accord McCullohs Svc. Sta. v. Wilkes, 183 Ga.App. 687, 690(1), 359 S.E.2d 745 (1987); Blalock v. Southern Ins. Co., 180 Ga.App. 319, 320, 349 S.E.2d 32 (1986). Accordingly, the judgment in C & L's favor is correct, albeit for the wrong reason. It is well established th......