SECOND DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, DOYLE, P. J.

, and REESE, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 5, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A1 59 6

. HAZELW OOD v

. AUTO-OW NERS INSURANCE

COM PANY. DO-0 6 1

D O Y LE , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Aft er beco m i n g i n

ju red w h i l e at t em

p t i n g t o i n fl at e a ti re o n h i s em p l o y er’ s

t ru ck , J o ey

Hazel wo od p urs u ed an u n d eri n s ured / u ni n s ured 1 m ot ori s t (“ UM ”) cl ai m

ag ai n s t h i s au t om o b i l e i n s u r an ce carri er, Au to -Own ers In s u ran ce Co m p an y

. 2

Fo l l o wi ng t h e g r a n t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o Au t o -Own ers

, Hazel wo o d ap p eal s

,

co n ten d in g th at t h e t ri al co u rt erre d b y ru li n g t h at h e was n o t en t it l ed t o co v erag e

1 “ If t h e m o t o ri s t i s u n i n s u red o r u n d eri n s u red

, t h e s tat u to ry ch aract eri zat i o n

i s t h at of ‘ u n i n s u red .’ ” FCCI In s

. Co

. v. McLen do n En ter p r i s es

, 2 9 7 G a. 1 3 6

, 1 3 7 n

. 2

(7 7 2 SE2 d 6 5 1 ) (2 0 1 5 ), ci t i n g OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (b ) (1 ) (D) (i i ).

2 Acco rd i n g to t h e ap pel l ee’ s b ri ef, Au t o -Own ers In s u ran c e C o m p an y i s a

m i s n o m er fo r t h e i n s u rer, Own ers In s uran ce Co m p an y

. Bo t h p art ies h av e co n t i n u ed

t o refer to t h e in s urer i n p l ead i n g s a n d b r i efs as Au to -Own ers In su ran ce Co m p an y

,

s o we u s e t h at n am e fo r p u rp o s es o f t h is ap p eal

.b ecau s e h e was i n ju red b y a veh i cl e fu rn i s h ed fo r h i s reg u l ar u s e. Fi n d i n g n o erro r,

we affi rm

.

“ On ap p eal fro m a g ran t o f a m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, w e rev i ew t h e

ev i d en ce d e n o v o i n t he l i gh t m o s t fav o rab l e to t h e n o nm o v an t t o det erm i n e wh et h er

a g en u i ne i s s u e o f fact rem ai n s an d wh et h er t h e m o v i n g p art y i s en t i t l ed t o ju d g m en t

as a m at t er o f l aw.” 3

Th e rel ev an t fact s in t h i s cas e are u n d i s p u t e d

. Hazel wo o d was em p l o y ed by

M i ch ael Ro s e d /b /a/ Ro s e Lo g gi n g (co ll ect i v el y “ Ro s e”) an d reg u l arl y d ro v e a l arg e

l o g g i n g t ru ck o wn ed b y Ro s e an d u s ed i n Ro se’ s b u s i n es s

. Hazel wo o d d ro v e t h e

t ru ck fi ve d ay s p er w eek

, an d al t h o u g h h e t y p i cal l y ret u rn ed i t at t h e en d o f h i s s h i ft

,

h e was n o t req u i red t o ret u rn t h e t ru ck t o Ro se at an y p art icu l ar t im e, an d h e h ad k ep t

i t o vern i g h t at l eas t t wi ce. L at e o n e aft ern o o n

, as Hazel wo o d was o n d u t y d ri v i n g t h e

t ru ck fro m a l o g gi n g s i t e t o a wo o d y ard

, two o f th e t ru ck ’ s ti res b l ew o u t

. Hazel wo o d

p u l l ed o v er o n t h e s i d e o f a t wo -l an e m o u n t ai n ro ad an d co n t act ed Ro s e, w h o arri v ed

wi t h a rep l acem en t t ire t o al l o w t h e m t o s l owl y d ri v e t he tru ck t o a s afer area to

p ro p erl y fi x b o t h t i res

. Aft er t h e t i re w a s m o u n t ed o n t h e wh eel

, Ro s e p art i al l y

3 Zi l ka v. S t a t e Fa r m Mu t . Au t o mo b il e In s . Co

. , 2 9 1 Ga. Ap p. 6 6 5 (6 6 2 SE2 d

7 7 7 ) (2 0 0 8 ).

2i n fl at ed i t a n d t u rn ed i t o v er t o Hazel w o o d t o co n t in u e t h e i n fl at i o n

. Hazel wo o d

res u m ed t h e i n fl at i o n, an d th e t i re b l ew o ff t h e wh eel

, st ri k i n g Hazel wo o d an d

cau s i n g h i m

i n ju ri es

.

Ro s e was co v ered by an au t o m o b i l e i n s u ran ce p o l i cy

, an d Hazel wo o d was p ai d

the $100, 0 0 0 p ol i cy l i m i t b y Ro s e’ s i n s u ran ce carri er. Becau s e Hazel wo o d ’ s d am ag es

ex ceed ed t h at am o u n t

, he s u ed Ro s e an d s erv ed A u t o -Own ers

, h i s o wn i n s u ran ce

p ro v id er, s o h e co ul d p u rs u e a UM cl ai m u nd er h i s po l i cy

. 4 A u t o -Own ers an s wered

an d m o v ed fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t o n t h e g ro u n d s t hat t h e t ru ck at i ss u e was n o t an

“ u n i n s u red m o t o r v eh i cl e” an d Hazel wo od fai l ed to co m p l y wi th h is p ol i cy ’ s n o t i ce

req u i rem en t

. Fo l l o w i n g a heari n g

, t h e t ri al co u rt ru l ed t h at a fact q ues t i o n rem ai n s o n

t h e i s s u e o f n o t i ce, b u t t h e co u rt g ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n t h e g ro u n d t h at t h e

t ru ck w as n o t an “ u n i n s u red m ot o r v eh i cl e” as t h at t erm i s defi n ed i n t h e p o l i cy an d

u n d er ap p l i cab l e l aw. Hazel wo o d n o w ap peal s

.

4 See g en eral ly OCGA § 33 -7 -1 1 (d ) (“ In cas es w h ere t h e o wn er or o p erat o r o f

an y v eh i cl e cau s i n g i n

ju ry o r d am ag es i s k n o wn

, an d ei t her o r b o t h are n am ed as

d efen d an t s i n an y act i o n fo r s u ch i n ju ry o r d am ag es

, an d a re a s o n a b l e b el i ef ex i s t s

t h at t he v eh i cl e i s an u n i n s u red m o t o r v e h i c l e

. . . , a co p y o f t h e act i o n an d al l

p l ead i n g s t h eret o s hal l b e s erv ed as p res cri bed b y l aw u p o n t h e i n s u ran ce co m p an y

i s su i ng t h e p o l i cy

as t h o u g h th e i n s uran ce co m p an y were act u al l y n am ed as a p art y

d efen d an t .”).

3Ha z el wo o d ’ s i n s u ran ce p o l i cy o b l i g at es Au t o -Own ers t o p ay Hazel wo o d

cert ai n d am ag es t hat h e is o t h erwi s e l eg al ly en t i t l ed t o reco v er fro m t h e o wn er o f an

“ u n i n s u red au t o m o b i le.” Bas ed o n th i s

, Hazel wo o d seek s reco v ery of t he d am ag es h e

al l eg es are d u e fro m Ro se i n ex ces s o f Ro s e’ s co v erag e l i m i t s

. 5 Hazel wo o d’ s p o l i cy

ex cl u d es fro m t h e d efi ni ti o n o f an u n i n s u red au t o m ob i l e v eh i cl es t h at are “ fu rn i s h ed

t o o r av ai l ab le fo r reg ul ar u s e o f [Hazel wo o d ]

. . . .” Hazel wo o d arg u es t h at t h i s

e x c l u s io n v i o l at es t h e s t at u t ory req u i rem en t fo r Au t o -Own ers to p ro v i d e U M

co v erag e u n d er OCGA § 3 3-7 -1 1 (a). 6 In l i g h t o f t h e n at u re o f t h e tru ck at i s s u e in

t h i s cas e, t h i s arg u m en t fai l s

.

OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (a) p ro v i d es :

No au t o m o b i l e l i ab i l i t y p o l i cy

. . . s h al l b e i s s ued o r d el i vered in t h i s

s t at e t o t h e o wn er o f s u ch v eh icl e

. . . u n l es s i t co n tai n s an en d o rs em en t

5 See g en eral l y O CGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (b ) (1 ) (D) (i i ) (I) (“ Th e in s u r ed ’s un i n s u r ed

mo t or i s t co ver a g e s h al l n o t b e u s ed t o d u p l i cat e p ay m en t s m ad e u n d er an y av ai l ab l e

b o d i l y i n ju ry l i ab i l it y i n s u ran ce an d p ro p ert y d a m a g e l i ab i l i t y i n s u ran ce co v erag es

b u t i n s t ead s h a l l b e ava i l a b le a s a d d it i o n a l in s u r a n ce co ver a g e i n exces s o f a n y

a va il a b l e b o d i ly i n

ju ry l i a b i l it

y i n su r a nce a n d

p r o per t y d a ma g e l i ab i li t

y i n s u r a nce

co ver a ges . . . .”) (em

p h as i s s u p p l i ed ).

6 See g e n e r a l l y W

a g ner v. Na t i o n wi d

e Mu t. Fi r e In s

. Co

. , 2 8 8 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3 2,

1 3 3 (6 5 3 SE2 d 5 2 6 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (co l l ect i n g cas es ) (“ Th e cas e l aw i s rep l et e w i t h ex am p l es

o f in v al i d ex cl u s i o n s st ru ck d o wn b ecau s e t h ey co n fl i ct w it h t h e rem ed i al p urp o s e o f

UM co v erag e.”).

4o r p ro v is i o n s u n d ert ak i n g t o p ay th e i n su red dam ag es

. . . of an i n s ured

u n d er t h e nam ed i n su red ’ s p o l i cy s u s ta in ed fr o m t h e o wn er o r o

p er a t o r

o f a n u n i n s u r ed

mo t o r veh i cl e , wi t h in [cert ai n s p eci fi ed ] l i m i t s

. . . . 7

OCGA § 3 3-7 -1 1 (b ) (1 ) (D) d efi n es t h e t erm “ un i n s u red m o t o r v eh i cl e” as “ a m o t o r

v eh icl e, ot h er t h a n a mo t o r veh i cl e o wn ed by o r f u rn i s h ed f

o r t h e r eg u la r u s e o

f t h e

n a med i n s u r ed . . . as t o wh ich t h ere i s [i n ad eq u at e co v erag e] .” 8 Th u s

, fo r a v eh i cl e

t o b e co n s i d ered an u ni n s u r e d m o t o r v eh i cl e, i t m u s t b e a veh i cl e o t h er t h an o n e

“ fu rn i s h ed fo r t h e reg u l ar u s e o f t h e n am ed i n su red ,” i n t h i s cas e, Hazel wo o d

.

Here, t h e u n d i s p ut ed fact s s h o w t h at t h e t ru ck t h at in ju red Hazel w o o d (an d t h at

i s o w n ed by Ro s e, t h e defen d an t i n th i s cas e) was o ne t hat was fu r n i s h e d t o

Hazel wo o d b y h i s em

p l o y er fo r h i s reg u lar u s e. T h i s i s “ [t ] h e m o st t y pi cal s it u at i o n ” 9

i n wh i ch a v eh i cl e i s fu rn is h ed t o an i n su red

, an d n o t h i n g i n t h e s tat u t o ry l an g u ag e

e x cl u des wo rk u ses su ch as t h e on e h ere. Th erefo re, b as ed o n t h e u n am b i g u o u s

7 (Em p h as i s s u p pl i ed .)

8 (Em p h as i s s u p pl i ed .)

9 Do e v. Ra m

p ley , 2 5 6 Ga. 5 7 5 , 5 7 6 (1 ) (3 5 1 SE2 d 2 0 5 ) (1 9 8 7 ).

5s t at u to ry d efi n i t i o n o f “ u n i n s u red m o t o r v eh i cl e,” t he t ru ck t h at i n ju red Hazel wo o d

can n ot b e co n s i dered an u n i n s u red m o t o r v eh i cl e u nd er OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1. 1 0

Hazel wo o d arg u es t h at t h i s co ncl u s io n co nfl i ct s wi th pri o r cas e l aw en fo rci n g

t h e m in i m

u m co v erag e pro v i si o n i n OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, h e ci t es Do e v.

Ra mp l ey 1 1 an d W

h i t e v. Met r o Pr o

p er t y & Ca s

. In s

. Co

. 1 2 Bu t t h o s e cas es d o n ot

ad d res s t h e p res en t s cen ari o b e c a u s e t he u n in s u red v eh i cl e cau s in g i n j u ry i n t h o s e

cas es was a s ep arat e v eh i cl e n o t fu rn i s h ed t o t he i n s u red fo r h i s o r h er reg u l ar u s e. 1 3

As st at ed i n Ra mp l e

y

, t h e f o c u s o f t h e UM co v erag e is o n th e “ veh i cl e wh i ch i s

1 0 See g en eral l y Ng u

yen v. S o u t h wes t er n Emer

g en cy Ph ys i ci an s

, P.C.

, 2 9 8 Ga.

7 5

, 7 8 -7 9 (2 ) (a) (7 79 SE2 d 3 3 4 ) (2 0 1 5 ) (“ [W ] e m u s t p res u m e t h a t t h e Gen eral

As s em b l y m ean t wh at i t s ai d an d s ai d w h at i t m ean t.

. . . [I] f th e s t at u t o ry t ex t i s ‘ cl ear

an d u n am b i g u o u s ,’ w e a t t r i b ut e t o t h e s tat u te i t s pl ai n m ean i n g

, an d o u r s earch fo r

s t at u to ry m ean i n g i s at an en d .”) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i tt ed ).

1 1 2 5 6 Ga. at 5 7 5

.

1 2 2 6 6 Ga. 3 7 1 (4 7 6 SE2 d 3 33 ) (1 9 9 6 ).

1 3 See W h it e

, 2 6 6 Ga. at 3 7 2 (“ Jeri W h i t e fi l ed s u i t ag ai n s t W i l l i am St ep h en s

fo r p ers o n al i n

ju ri es s u ffered in a co l li s i o n b et w een au t o m ob i l es

. Si n ce St ep h en s was

an u ni n s ured m o t o ri s t

, W h i t e, wh o was d ri v i n g h er own au t o m o b il e wh en t h e

co l l i s i o n o ccu rred

, so u gh t u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e

. . . .”); Ra mp l ey

, 2 5 6 Ga. at

5 7 6 (“ [Ram

p l ey ] n am ed J o h n Do e t he d efen d an t an d al leg ed h er h u s b an d ’ s d eat h was

cau s ed by an u n k n o wn m o t o ri s t [wi t h i n s u ffi ci en t i n s u ran ce] wh o n eg l i g en t l y d ro v e

h i s v eh i cl e i n t o t h e p at h o f a t ru ck d ri v en b y h er h u sb an d .”).

6al l eg ed to h av e been u n in s ured ,” 1 4 an d i n n ei th er o f t h o se cas es w as t h e u n i n s u red

v eh icl e fu rn i s h ed t o t he i n s u red fo r reg u l ar u s e. No t ab l y

, Ra mp l ey ex p res s ly d ecl i n ed

t o ad d res s t h e s cen ari o wh e r e t h e u n i n s u red v eh i cl e w as p ro v i d ed fo r t h e i n s u red ’ s

reg u l ar u se. 1 5 Th erefo re, n ei th er Ra mp ley n o r W h i t e co n t ro ls o u r h ol d i n g i n t h i s cas e.

Th i s d i s ti n ct i o n was po in t ed o u t b y o u r Co u rt in Zi l ka v. St a te F

ar m Mu t

.

Au t o m o b i l e In s

. Co

. 1 6 In Zi l ka

, t h e i n s u red was dri v i n g her o w n v eh icl e wh en s h e was

i n v o l v ed i n a co l l i s i o n

. A d i s p u t e aro s e as to wh et h er t h e p o li cy h ad b een can cel l ed

fo r l ack o f p ay m en t. Aft er t h e i n s u rer was g r a n t e d s u m m ary ju d g m en t as t o l ack o f

co v e r a g e, t h e i ns u red arg u ed t h at s h e co u l d s t i ll s eek co v erag e u nd er t h e UM

p ro v is i o n s b ecau s e h er v eh i cl e was u n in s u red

. T h i s Co u rt reject ed t h at arg u m e n t

,

n o t i n g t h at “ i t i s th e v eh i cl e co -o wn ed b y th e Zi l k as t h at i s al l e g e d t o b e t h e o n l y

u n i n s u red m o t o r veh i cl e i n v o l v ed i n t h e acci d en t .” 1 7 T h erefo re, b ecau s e t h e UM

p r o v i s i o n o n l y p ro v i d es fo r reco v ery fro m t h e own er o r o p erat o r o f an u ni n s u red

v eh icl e, an d th ei r v eh i cl e d i d n o t q u al ify b ecau s e i t was o wn ed b y t h e i ns u red

, t h e

1 4 Ra mp l ey

, 2 6 5 Ga. at 5 77 (2 ).

1 5 See Ra m

p l ey , 2 5 6 Ga. at 5 7 7 (2 ).

1 6 2 9 1 Ga. Ap p . at 6 6 5

.

1 7 Id . at 67 0 (4 ).

7Co u rt affi rm ed t h e g ran t o f s u m m ary ju d gm en t t o th e i n su rer. In so d o in g

, t h e Co u rt

d i s t i n gu i sh ed Do e an d W

h i t e “ b ecau s e t h ey i n v o l v ed cl ai m s i n wh i ch t h e i n s u red was

i n v o l v ed i n a co l l i s i o n w i t h an un i n s u red t h i rd p art y

. ” 1 8 Th e s am e d i s t i n ct i o n ap p li es

h ere.

In su m

, becau s e t he u n i n s u red v eh i cl e i n t hi s cas e was fu rn is hed t o t h e i n s u red

fo r h i s reg u l ar u s e, i t d o es n o t m eet t h e defi n i t i o n o f an un i n s u red m o t or v eh i cl e u n d er

OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (b ) ( 1 ) ( D )

. A c co rd i n gl y

, t h e t ri al co u rt co rrect l y ru l ed t h at

Hazel wo o d was n ot en ti t l ed t o UM co v erag e u n d er h i s p o l icy

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Mi l l er

, P. J., a n d

Rees e, J., co n cu r

.

1 8 Id

.

8