State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Sweat
Decision Date | 11 March 1982 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C81-2056. |
Citation | 547 F. Supp. 233 |
Parties | STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY v. Michele Denise SWEAT, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Eugene G. Partain, Robert M. Travis, Thomas Harper, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Richard G. Greer, Greer, Klosik & Daugherty, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
Laurence A. Marder, Michael Weinstock, Michael Weinstock, P. C., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants.
Mark Dickerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant/intervenor.
In this diversity declaratory judgment action, Plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company1 seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no additional liability to Defendants, its insureds, for no-fault insurance benefits beyond those previously paid. The action is before the Court on State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment.
In 1975, the Georgia legislature enacted the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act, Ga.Code Ann. § 56-3401b et seq. (the "Act"). The Act does the following:
The parts of the Act most pertinent to this opinion are the following subsections of section 56-3404b:
The Act became effective on March 1, 1975. In 1977, William Jones applied to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. for no-fault automobile insurance. State Farm's agent filled out the application form, apparently based on information given to him by Jones. It was (and still is) the practice of State Farm to offer four levels of no-fault coverage: the required $5,000, as well as coverage of $10,000, $25,000, or $50,000.3 The application form presented to Jones listed each of these coverages, with small blocks labeled "Reject" or "Accept" provided for each of the four levels of coverage. According to State Farm's agent, he advised Jones of the available optional coverages and Jones indicated he did not want them. The agent put a check mark in the "Accept" block for the $5,000 coverage, and also checked the "Reject" blocks for the other three levels of coverage. Jones signed the completed application only once, in the single space provided at the bottom of the application.
On April 24, 1978, Jones was involved in an automobile accident, and suffered injuries covered by his no-fault policy. He filed a claim with State Farm, which after some delays paid the claim up to the policy limit.4 Jones had incurred medical expenses that exceeded his coverage, however, and asked State Farm for reimbursement for the additional sums as well. When State Farm refused further reimbursement, Jones brought suit in the State Court of Muscogee County.
The Complaint filed by Jones contained two counts. In Count II, Jones contended that he was entitled to protection under the optional no-fault coverages not included in his policy. His theory was that Ga.Code Ann. § 56-3404(b) required that optional coverages be rejected by the insured's signature in a space next to the "reject" block on the application form. Anything less than that did not effect rejection of optional no-fault coverage. Jones did not contend that his $5,000 no-fault policy provided less coverage than he had requested or intended to purchase. Rather, Count II of his lawsuit simply contended:
The precise nature of Jones' cause of action under Count II is unclear from his Complaint. However, it is noted that the Jones opinion describes it, by implication, as a cause of action for reformation of contract.
In Count I of the Complaint, Jones sought attorneys' fees and punitive damages under section 56-3406b(c) for the late payment of the part of his claim which had been paid, albeit tardily.
State Farm filed an Answer to the Complaint, admitting certain averments of Jones' Complaint and denying others. The Answer contained no plea to the jurisdiction. No counterclaim was filed.
Both sides moved for summary judgment on both counts. State Farm's motion was granted; Jones' was denied.
Jones appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in State Farm's favor on both counts. Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 156 Ga.App. 230, 274 S.E.2d 623 (1980).
On Count I, the Court found State Farm's payments had been late; summary judgment in its favor on this count was improper for this reason. It also found summary judgment was properly denied the insured, however, since the question of State Farm's good faith had not been adjudicated.
On Count II, the Court similarly found neither side to have been entitled to summary judgment.
State Farm was not entitled to summary judgment because, the Court held, the Act requires the optional coverages to be offered through the application in accordance with section 56-3404b(b). State Farm's nofault application form did not comply with the requirements of section 56-3404b(b). Specifically, the lack of a signature space next to the "Accept" and "Reject" blocks in the optional coverages section rendered the form deficient. Interpreting sections 56-3404b(a), (b) and (c) together, the court held State Farm had failed to negative the existence of a "continuing offer" of optional no-fault coverage which could only be terminated by (a) the use of a proper application form in the first instance or (b) by the use of a subsequent written instrument meeting the requirements of section 56-3404b(c). The court specifically noted the deposition testimony of State Farm's agent that Jones had been informed (presumably verbally) of the optional coverages and turned them down; it found such testimony to be of no avail to State Farm.
Turning then to Jones' cross-motion, the court found the motion had been properly denied because the record was silent as to whether Jones had received the section 56-3404b(c) written notice which would have terminated the continuing offer of optional coverage. Then, in dicta, the court went on to state that if the facts subsequently (on remand) showed Jones had not received the aforesaid notice, he would be entitled to claim the optional coverage upon tendering the additional premium.5 In further dicta, the court stated that "until that time, however, there is no contract for optional coverage to `reform.'" 156 Ga.App. at 234, 274 S.E.2d 623.
In summary, Jones implicitly held6 that a penalty for noncompliance with section 56-3404b is the providing of retroactive, post-risk, additional insurance coverages.7 This penalty obtains even if the insured verbally evidenced intent to reject optional coverages. In order to exact the penalty, it is not necessary that the insured show specific injury or monetary loss occasioned by the lack of written rejection of the policy; rather, only the absence of written rejection need be shown. This penalty, i.e., the providing of retroactive post-risk insurance coverage, is referred to hereinafter as the "continuing offer penalty."8
State Farm and many of its insureds were quick to react to the Jones decision. If the Act provided for a "continuing offer" of optional no-fault coverage of $45,000, and if State Farm's insurance application forms failed to properly terminate this offer, then it was possible for any insured who had signed the same form as William Jones to "accept" the "continuing offer" by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rojas v. Fitch
...state administrative process ... or unnecessarily enjoin state officials from executing domestic policies.'" State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Sweat, 547 F.Supp. 233, 241 (N.D.Ga.1982) (quoting Allegheny, 360 U.S. at 189, 79 S.Ct. at 1063). Neither of these factors are present in this instance.......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Welker
...action is determined by federal law. M. Swift & Sons, Inc. v. Lemon, 24 F.R.D. 43, 45 (S.D.N.Y.1959); State Farm Fire and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Sweat, 547 F.Supp. 233, 239 (N.D.Ga.1982), motion to remand granted, sub nom., State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. West, 723 F.2d 1518 (11th Cir. 1984)......
-
Handi-Craft Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America
...F.Supp. 433, 439-40(D.Md. 1992); N. E. Ins. Co. v. N. Brokerage Co., 780 F.Supp. 318, 320 (D.Md. 1991); State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sweat, 547 F.Supp. 233, 239 (N.D.Ga.1982); M. Swift & Sons, Inc. v. Lemon, 24 F.R.D. 43, 45 (S.D.N.Y.1959); but see 118 E. 60th Owners, Inc. v. Bonner......
-
Wilson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...case. The stated reason for granting summary judgment in the Sneed, Jr. case was this court's decision in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Sweat, 547 F.Supp. 233 (N.D.Ga. 1982) (holding that the Georgia appellate courts would not apply Jones retroactively). Judgment was granted to State Fa......