Young v. Allstate Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. 37472,37472
• Citation: 282 S.E.2d 115,248 Ga. 350
• Parties: Shelly YOUNG, Administrator of the Estate of Hershel Young, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 115

282 S.E.2d 115

248 Ga. 350

Shelly YOUNG, Administrator of the Estate of Hershel Young, v.ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 37472.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 24, 1981.

L. H. Hilton, Hilton & Martin, Sylvania, Ashley Royal, Falligant, Kent & Toporek, P. C., Joseph P. Brennan, Bouhan, Williams & Levy, Savannah, for Shelly Young, Admr.

Richard R. Mehrhof, Jr., Allgood & Childs, Augusta, for Allstate Insurance Co.

CLARKE, Justice.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has certified the following question to this court:

Where a policy is issued under Georgia's compulsory automobile insurance plan (Ga.Code Ann. § 68C-601), does the insured's failure to notify the insurer of a lawsuit against him, as required by the policy, constitute a defense to the insurer's liability to the injured third party who initiated the lawsuit?

We conclude that the failure of the insured to notify the insurer of the lawsuit against him does not constitute a defense to the insurer's liability.This is true even though the insurance has been extended by the insurer under the assigned risk plan set out in Code Ann. § 68C-601.

The availability of the defense of lack of notice to an assigned risk insurer's liability to an injured third party is a question of first impression in Georgia.The majority rule is that lack of notice to the insurer provides no defense where insurance is compulsory.Annot., 31 A.L.R.2d 645(1953).The rule adopted by a majority of other jurisdictions is based upon the proposition that financial responsibility laws are enacted for the benefit of the public rather than for the benefit of the insured.Therefore, the failure of the insured to comply with the policy provisions should not defeat the rights of those for whose benefit the law requiring the policy was enacted.

A statute can best be construed by first identifying the mischief which motivated the legislature to act.The mischief here was the exposure of the motoring public to injury and damage at the hands of financially irresponsible drivers.The enactment of the assigned risk plan found in Code Ann. § 68C-601 indicates a determination by the General Assembly that the innocent should not bear the loss.Although the precise question before us has not been addressed by the Georgia courts, we have espoused the principle that financial responsibility laws are designed to protect the general public and that automobile liability policies are to be construed in conjunction with these laws.Davis v. Reserve Insurance Co., 220 Ga. 335, 138 S.E.2d 657(1964).

A question related to that before us was addressed by the Court of Appeals in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Coburn, 129 Ga.App. 520, 200 S.E.2d 146(1973).The court held the insured's failure to give notice as required by the policy would not relieve a compulsory liability insurer from liability to an injured third party where there has been actual notice and the insurer has not been prejudiced by insured's failure to cooperate.

The situation here is different in two respects.In the first place, the failure of the insured to live up to his obligations under the policy have resulted in there being not only a failure of notice but a default judgment as well.The second distinguishing characteristic is that the insurance was issued under the assigned risk plan.

Beginning with the premise that the financial responsibility laws are enacted for the protection of the public, it is obvious that the need for this protection is particularly acute when a driver who is a poor risk is operating an automobile.This is the policy behind the assigned risk plan to which automobile insurers who do business in the state must subscribe.Under the plan insurers are assigned applicants who are unable to obtain policies through ordinary methods.Allstate insists that the Georgia cases and cases from other jurisdictions relied upon by the injured party are not applicable where the insurer has been compelled to accept an insured under...