A man injured in a head-on collision could not recover uninsured motorist ("UM") benefits from his fiancée's parents' automobile insurance carrier, an appellate court in Georgia has decided.

The Case

Jason Stanley was driving a vehicle owned by his employer when he was involved in a head-on collision with a vehicle driven by Alissa Young. Mr. Stanley submitted a claim to Ms. Young's insurer. The insurer denied his claim, informing him that Ms. Young's policy had lapsed at the time of the accident.

Consequently, Mr. Stanley submitted a claim for UM benefits to the Government Employees Insurance Company ("GEICO"), which had issued an automobile insurance policy to Allen and Rosa McMillan, the parents of Mr. Stanley's fiancée, Robmeka Scott. At that time, the McMillans, Mr. Stanley, and Ms. Scott resided in the same home.

GEICO denied coverage.

Mr. Stanley sued Ms. Young, alleging that the collision was a result of her negligence and seeking damages for his injuries. Mr. Stanley also served GEICO with a summons and copy of the complaint. GEICO filed an answer and cross claim against Ms. Young.

Thereafter, GEICO filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Stanley was not an insured under the policy and, thus, was not entitled to UM coverage under the policy's terms.

The trial court granted GEICO's motion, and Mr. Stanley appealed.

The GEICO Policy

The GEICO policy provided:

You and your means the named insured shown in the declarations or his or her spouse if a resident of the same household. 

The policy also provided:

Section IV – Uninsured Motorist Coverage 

…

2. Insured means:

(a)  You and your spouse if a resident of the same household;

(b) Relatives of (a) above if residents of his household;

(c) Any other person while occupying an owned auto with your consent or operating an owned auto with your express or implied permission;

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that the Declarations Page listed only the McMillans as the "Named Insureds" and explicitly listed Mr. Stanley as an "Additional Driver."

The appellate court ruled that because Mr. Stanley was not a named insured, a spouse of a named insured, or a relative of a named insured, and because Georgia law was "clear" that "listed drivers" were not named insureds, Mr. Stanley was not covered by the GEICO policy.

The appellate court rejected Mr. Stanley's argument that he was covered by the "Medical Payment Coverage" section of the policy, which provided that GEICO would "pay reasonable expenses actually incurred by an insured," reasoning that this section of the policy did not modify the definition of the terms "insured" or "you" and, thus, Mr. Stanley's argument failed for the same reason that his claim of coverage under the UM section failed.