The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the state's uninsured motorists (UM) statute requires an insurer to pay damages to its insured (a father) for the death of the insured's son. The son did not live with the insured and was not a covered person under his father's insurance policy, but the court found that state law required UM payment regardless of whether the person injured is a covered or noncovered person under the policy terms. The case is Gordon v. Atlanta Casualty Co., No. S04G1388, 2005 WL 696570 ( Ga. Mar. 28, 2005).

 

James O'Neal, Jr. was struck and killed by an uninsured motorist. At the time of the accident, he lived with his mother, who was separated from his father, James O'Neal, Sr. O'Neal, Sr., the named insured, sought uninsured motorists coverage for the wrongful death of his son from his insurer, Atlanta Casualty.

 

Atlanta Casualty asserted that O'Neal, Jr. was not a covered person under the policy. However, the trial court said that “the policy's definition of a covered person was trumped by Georgia 's uninsured motorist statute.” The statute requires auto policies issued in Georgia to contain a provision “undertaking to pay the insured all sums which said insured shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle.” The appeals court reversed the trial court's finding for the insured, and the case went to the Supreme Court.

 

The state Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the statute is clear and requires the insurer to pay for all sums the insured is legally entitled to recover. Furthermore, a plain reading of the statute required payment, regardless of whether the person injured is a covered person or not in the policy. All that the statute required is that the insured person be legally entitled to recover damages. Since the insured in this case was entitled to recover wrongful death damages from the operator of the uninsured motor vehicle operator, the court reasoned that Atlanta Casualty had to pay.