Case ID: f2d_759/html/1566-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barbara GUERRUCCI and Enzo Guerrucci, as Next Friends of Lawrence and Jennifer Guerrucci, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 84-8587.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 13, 1985.
    Kenneth J. Rajotte, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.
    Dean S. Daskal, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
    Before RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges, and PITTMAN , District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Virgil Pittman, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

The facts of this case are undisputed. The appellants held an automobile insurance policy issued by the appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). The policy was in effect prior to and at the time of the passage of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (Georgia No-Fault Law), OCGA § 33-34-1, et seq. Prior to the effective date of the Act, the appellee mailed to the appellants a card entitled “Statement of Coverages as of March 1, 1975 (149).” On December 13, 1974, the appellant Enzo Guerrucci signed the card, rejecting all optional coverage (a copy of the card as executed by Mr. Guerrucci is attached as Appendix “A”). In June, 1976, appellant Enzo Guerrucci’s wife and two children sustained serious bodily injuries in an automobile accident. The insurance policy was in full force and effect at that time. Appellants sought retroactive increase of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. State Farm refused to extend the maximum PIP benefits. There is no question or issue about the basic coverage required by law of $5,000.00.

The question before this court is whether the district court erred in holding that the card provided by State Farm met the requirements of the Georgia No-Fault Law, OCGA § 33-34-5(c).

The appellants contend that the card does not meet those requirements. Under Wiard v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 251 Ga. 698, 310 S.E.2d 221 (1983), State Farm was required to provide “a document containing (1) written information clearly stating the optional No-Fault PIP coverage and the optional No-Fault vehicle damage coverage, and (2) a means for the insured to make a written acceptance or rejection of each.” Id. at 700, 310 S.E.2d at 223. The appellants argue that State Farm’s card did not meet the second of those requirements. They argue that the document must provide means by which the insured can make two separate written expressions of rejection — one for the personal injury coverage and one for the vehicle damage coverage.

The court finds the appellants’ argument to be without merit. Subsequent to Wiard, King v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 169 Ga.App. 651, 314 S.E.2d 486 (1984), considered the same optional coverage selection card of State Farm that is before this court and held its selection card meets the requirements of OCGA § 33-34-5(c). The order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm is therefore AFFIRMED.