SECOND DI VI SI ON
M I LLER, P. J.

, A NDREWS, J.

, and SENI OR A PPELLA TE JUDGE DOROTHY T. BEA SLEY

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 ay 7, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A 1 8 A 0 0 0 9

. B R A M L E Y v

. N A T I O N W I D E A F F I N I T Y
INSURANCE COM PANY OF AM ERICA.

M I LLE R , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

J en n i fer Bram l ey was i n

ju red i n an au t o m o b i l e acci d en t i n Au g u s t 2 0 1 5

. In

Ap ri l o f 2 0 1 6

, s h e fi rs t n o t i fi ed h er u ni n su red m o t o ri s t carri er, Nat i o n wi d e Affi n i t y

In s u ran ce Co m

p an y of A m eri ca (“ Nat i o nwi d e”), th at s h e h a d fi l ed s ui t ag ai n s t t h e

o t h er d ri v er. Nat i o n wi de m o ved fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n t h e gro u nd t hat t h e n o t i ce

was u n t i m el y un d er t h e p o l i cy , wh i ch req u i red th e in s u red t o no t ify Nat i o n wi d e

“ i m m ed iat el y ” aft er th e acci d en t

. Fo l lo wi n g a h eari n g , t h e t r i a l c o u rt g ran t ed

Nat i o n w i d e’ s s u m

m ary ju dg m en t m o t i o n

. Bram l ey no w ap p eal s , arg u i ng th at t h e t ri al

co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g su m m ary ju d g m en t b ecau s e (1 ) t h e p o l i cy d i d n o t d efi n e

“ l o ss ; ” (2 ) n o t i ce was no t a co n d i t i o n p reced en t to co v erag e; (3 ) h er d el ay in g i v i n gn o t i ce was reas o n ab l e; an d (4 ) t h e at t o rn ey fo r t h e o th er d ri v er s h o ul d n o t h av e b een

p erm i t t ed t o p art i ci p at e i n t h e s u m m ary ju d g m en t h eari ng

. W e co n cl u d e t hat t h e t ri al

c o u r t e r r e d in g ran t i ng s u m m ary ju d g m en t b ecau s e t h ere was a ju ry q u es t i o n as t o

wh e t h e r Bram l ey ’ s fai l u re to pro v id e t im el y n o t i ce was d u e t o a reas o nab l e d el ay

.

Acco rd in g ly

, we rev e r s e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ord er an d rem an d t h e cas e fo r fu rt h er

p ro ceed in g s

.

Su m m ary ju d g m en t i s p ro p er wh en t h ere i s no g en u i ne i s s ue o f m at eri al

fact an d t h e m o van t is en t i t l ed t o ju d g m en t as a m at t er o f l a w. OCGA
§ 9 -1 1 -5 6 (c). A d e n o v o s t an d ard o f rev i ew ap p li es t o an ap p eal fro m

a gran t o r d en i al o f s um m ary ju d g m en t

, an d we v iew t he ev id en ce, an d

al l reas o n ab l e co n cl u si o n s an d i n feren ces drawn fro m it

, i n t h e l i g h t

m o s t fav o rab le t o t h e n o n m o v an t

.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t ted .) Amt ru s t No r t h Amer i ca
, In c. v. S mi t h

, 3 15 Ga. Ap p

. 13 3 ( 7 2 6

SE2 d 6 2 8) (2 0 1 2).

Th e fact s of t h e cas e are u n d i s p u t ed

. Bram l ey was i n j u red i n an au t o acci d en t

o n Au g u s t 1 7

, 2 0 1 5

, wh en h er c a r w a s s t ru ck by an o t h er d ri v er. Ab o u t o ne t o t wo

week s aft er t h e acci d en t

, s h e w as ex am i n ed b y a n eu ro l o g i s t an d t r e a t e d f o r h er

i n ju ri es

. Des p i t e t reat m en t

, s h e co n t i n u ed t o ex p eri en ce p ai n in h er l o wer b ack an d

l eg s t h at p rev en t ed h er fro m wo rk i n g

.

2Th e car Bram ley was d ri v i n g at t he t i m e o f t h e acci d en t was o w n ed b y h er

t h en -ex -h u s b a n d an d i n s u red b y Nat i o n wi d e wi th u n i n s u red / u n d eri n s u red m o t o ri s t

co v erag e (“ UM ”). Th e U M p r o v i s i o n o f t h e p ol i cy req u i res th at t h e i n s ured “ m u s t

s u b m i t wri t ten p r o o f o f t h e cl ai m t o [Nat i on wi de] i m m ed i at el y aft er t h e l o s s .”

A dd i t i o n al ly

, t he p o l i cy in cl u d es “ l eg al act io n l im i t at i o ns ,” wh i c h pr ovide

, in r e le va nt

p art

, t h at “ n o l eg al act i on m ay b e b ro u g h t ag ai n s t t he co m p an y co n cern i ng an y o f t h e

co v erag es pro v i d e d u n t i l t h e i n s u red has fu l ly co m p l i ed wi t h al l th e t erm s o f t h e

p o l i cy .” Th ro ug h co un s el

, Bram l e y n o ti fi ed Nat i on wi de o f t h e p en d i n g l aws u i t

ag ai n s t t h e o t h er d ri v er, St o rm Au s t i n , o n Ap ri l 2 0

, 20 1 6

. Th i s was t h e fi rs t an d o n l y

n o t i ce Bram l ey

p ro vi d ed

.

Nat i o n wi de m ov ed fo r s u m m ary ju dg m en t

, arg u i n g t h at Bram l ey fai l ed to

co m p l y wi t h t h e UM n o t i ce p ro v i s i o n i n t h e p o l i cy , an d t h us , h er cl ai m was b arred

.

Bram l ey res po nd ed th at s h e was n o t t h e nam ed i n s ured an d th erefo re s he h ad n ev er

s een t h e po l i cy

. Sh e fu rt h er ex p l ai n ed t h at s h e h ad no t k n o w n t h e fu l l ex t en t o f h er

i n ju ri es u n t i l h er t reat m en t b y t h e n eu ro l o gi s t i n earl y

2 0 1 6. Sh e co n t en d ed t h at t h e

UM n o t ice req u irem en t i n t h e p o l i cy was no t a co n d i t i o n p reced en t to co v erag e, t h e

t ri al co u rt s h o u l d co n s t ru e t h e p o l i cy i n fav o r o f co v erag e, an d t h at Nat i on wi d e faced

n o p reju d i ce o r h arm

fro m t h e d el ay

.

3At a h eari n g o n th e s u m m ary ju d gm en t m ot io n , Au s t i n ’ s co u n s el was p res en t

an d s eat ed at t h e tab l e w i t h N a t i o n wi d e’ s at to rn ey ev en t ho u g h h e h ad n o t fi l ed a

m o ti o n o r b ri ef co n cern i n g t h e p en di n g su m m a r y ju d g m en t m ot i o n

. Bram l ey ’ s

at t o rn ey o b

ject ed t o t h e pres en ce o f Au s t i n ’ s at t o rn ey , b u t t h e t ri al co urt al l o wed t h e

at t o rn ey t o rem ai n

. Aft er h eari n g arg u m en t f r o m Bram l ey ’ s an d N at i o n wi d e’ s

at t o rn ey s , t h e t ri al co u rt al l o wed Au s t i n’ s at to rn ey t o a d d r es s t he co u rt

, o v er

Bram l ey ’ s o b

ject io n

. Th e t ri al co u rt gran t ed s um m ary ju d g m en t t o N a t i o n wi de,

fi nd i ng t h at t h e p l ai n m ean i n g o f t h e p o l i cy term “ i m m ed i at el y ” d i d n ot i n cl u d e

wai t i n g s ev eral m o n th s t o g i v e n o ti ce. Th e t ri al co u rt fu rt h er fo u n d t h at Bram l ey ’ s

d el ay was u n reas o n ab l e. Bram l ey n o w ap p eal s.

1

. Bram l ey fi rs t arg ues t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g su m m ary ju d g m en t

b ecau s e t h e t erm

“ l o s s ” i n t h e p o li cy was am b i gu o us

.

Bram l ey d i d n o t arg u e t h at t he t erm “ l o s s ” was am

b i g uo u s i n her res p o n s e t o

t h e s u m m ary ju d g m en t m o t io n or at t h e h eari n g o n t h e m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

,

an d we w i l l n o t co n si d er an arg u m en t rai s ed fo r th e fi rs t t i m e on ap p eal

. Ma l a g a

Mg mt

. Co

. v. Jo h n De e r e C o

. , 2 0 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 6 4

, 76 6 (4 ) (4 3 1 SE2 d 7 4 6) (1 9 9 3 )

(“ Th i s i s su e, h o wev er, was n o t rai sed u n t i l ap p eal ; aft er s u m m ary ju dg m en t i s g ran t ed

4t o a m o v an t / pl ai n t i ff, a n o n m o v an t / d efen d an t m ay n o t rai s e an arg u m en t o r d efen s e

n o t as s ert ed i n t h e t ri al co u rt .”).

2

. Bram ley co n ten d s th at p ro v i d i n g i m m ed i at e n ot i ce was n o t a co n d i t i o n

p reced en t t o co v erag e. W e d i s ag ree.

“ An i n su ran ce p o l i cy is s i m pl y a co n t ract

, th e pro v i s i on s o f wh i ch s h o u l d b e

co n st ru ed as an y o t her t y

p e o f co n t ract

. Th e co n s t ru ct i on o f an u nam b i g uo u s co n t ract

i s a q u es t i o n o f l aw fo r t h e co u rt .” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i on o m i t t ed .) Fed er a t ed Mu t

.

In s

. Co

. v. Own b ey En t er p ri s es , 2 7 8 Ga.Ap p

. 1

, 5 (6 27 SE2 d 9 1 7) (2 0 0 6). W h en

co n st ru i n g a co n t ract

, we n ot e t h at “ [w] o rd s g en eral ly b ear th ei r u s u al an d co m m o n

s i gn i fi cat i o n .” OCGA § 1 3 -2 -2 (2 ). “ Un am bi g u o u s t e rm s are t ak en i n th ei r p l ai n,

o rd i n ary an d p o p u l ar s en s e as s u p p l i ed b y d i ct io n ari es .” (Ci t at i o n an d fo o t n o t e

o m it t ed .) Bl u e Cr o s s & Bl u e S h i el d o f Geo r g ia

, In c. v. Sh i r ley

, 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 3 4

, 4 3 8

(6 9 9 SE2 d 6 1 6 ) (2 0 1 0 ). As t h i s Co u rt recen tl y ex p l ai n ed

,

W h en p o s s i b le, we co n s tru e i n su ran ce po l i ci es t o p ro v i d e co v erag e, s o

as t o ad v an ce t he b en efi t s i n t en d ed t o b e acco m p l i s h ed b y su ch p o l i ci es

. Ho wev er, a fo rfei t u re o f i n s u ran ce co v erag e m ay res u l t wh en an i n s ured

fai l s t o s at i s fy a co n d i ti o n p reced en t t o co verag e u nd er t h e co n t ract

. In

p art i cu l ar, an i n su red t h at can n o t dem o n s t rat e ju s t i fi cat i on fo r fai lu re t o

co m p ly wi t h a n ot i ce p ro v i s io n t h at i s ex p res s ly m ad e a c o n d i t i o n

p reced en t t o co v erag e i s n o t e n t i t l ed to ei th er a d efen s e o r co v erag e,

5ev en i f t he i n su rer d o es n o t s h o w act u al h arm fro m a d el ay i n n o t i ce

. . . .

Th e g en eral ru l e i s t h at a n o t i ce p ro v i s i o n i n an i n su ran ce p o l i cy i s o n l y

co n s i d ered a co n d i ti o n p reced en t t o co v erag e i f i t ex p res s l y s t at es t hat

a fai l u re t o pro vi d e s u ch n o t i ce wi l l res u l t i n a fo rfei t u re o f t h e i n s u red ’ s

ri gh ts o r u s es l an g u ag e wh i ch o th erwi se cl earl y ex p res s es t he in t en t i o n

t h at t h e n o t i ce p ro v i s i o n b e treat ed as a co n di t i o n p reced en t

. Po l i cy

l an g uag e t h at m erel y

req u i res t h e i n s ured t o g i ve n o t i ce o f a p art i cu l ar

ev en t d o es n o t b y it s el f creat e a co n di t i o n p reced en t

. A g en er a l

p r o vi s i o n t ha t no a ct i o n w i ll l i e a g ai n s t t h e i n s ur er u n l es s t he i n s u r ed

h a s f u l l y co mp l ied wi th th e t er ms o f t h e p o li cy wi l l s u

f f i c e t o cr ea t e a

co n d i t i o n p r eced en t

.

(Ci t at i o n s an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ; em p h as i s s u p p li ed

. ) Pr o g r es si ve M o u nt a i n In s

.

Co . v. Bi s h o p , 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p . 1 15 , 1 1 7 -1 1 8 (1 ) (7 9 0 SE2 d 9 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

Here, t h e UM pro v is i o n o f t h e po l i cy r e q u i r e s t he i ns u red t o “ s ub m i t wri t t en

p ro o f o f t h e cl ai m t o [Nat i o nwi d e ] i m m ed i at el y aft er t h e l o s s .” Ad d i t i o nal l y , t h e

p o l i cy co n t ai n s l an g u ag e t h at “ n o l eg al act i o n m ay b e b ro u g h t ag ai n s t t h e co m p an y

co n cern in g an y

o f t h e co v erag es p ro v i d ed u nt i l t h e i n s ured h as fu l l y co m p l i ed wi th

al l t h e t erm s o f th e p o li cy .” Th u s , co m p li an c e w i t h t h e UM n o t i ce req u i rem en t

, o r

ju s t if i c a t i o n fo r t h e fai lu re to d o s o, was a co n d i t i on preced en t t o co v erag e. See

Pr o gr es si ve Mo u n ta in In s . Co

. , 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 1 8 (1 ).

63

. Bram l ey n ex t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g su m m ary ju d g m en t

b ecau s e h er d el ay i n n o t i fy i n g Nat i o n wi de was reas o n ab l e. W e ag ree.

“ Th e pu rp o s e of a n o t i ce p ro v is i o n i n a p o l i cy o f i n s uran c e i s t o al l o w t h e

i n s u rer t o i n ves t i g at e p r o m pt l y t h e fact s s u rro u n d i n g t h e o ccu rren ce an d t o p rep are

a d efen se o r d et erm i n e wh et h er a s et t l em en t i s feas i b l e, wh i le t h e fact s are s t i l l fres h

an d t h e wi t n es s es are s t i l l av ai l ab l e.” (Ci t at io n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Pl a n t a t i o n

Pi p el i n e Co . v. Ro

ya l In d em. Co

. , 2 4 5 Ga. Ap p . 2 3 , 2 7 (1 ) (5 3 7 SE2 d 1 6 5 ) (2 0 0 0 ).

Th e t erm “ i m

m ed i at el y ” i n a n i n s u ran ce p ol i cy h as “ been co n st ru ed i n m an y

cas es t o m ean wi t h reas on ab l e d i l i g en ce an d wi t h i n a reas o n ab l e l en g th o f t i m e in

v i ew of at t en d i n g ci rcu m st an ces o f e a c h p a r tic ula r c a se

. ” ( C i ta tio n o m i t t ed .) Ad vo ca t e

Net wo r ks

, LLC v. Ha r t

f o r d Fi r e In s

. Co

. , 2 9 6 Ga. Ap p

. 3 3 8, 3 4 0 (1 ) (6 7 4 SE2 d 6 1 7 )

(2 0 0 9); b u t s ee m erri am -web st er.co m (d efi n i n g “ i m m ed i at el y ” as “ w i t h o ut i n t erv al

o f t i m e”). To t h at en d

, we h av e fo u n d t h at a p eri o d o f as l i t t l e as fo u r m o n th s was n ot

“ i m m ed iat e.” Id

. at 3 4 0 (1 ). See al s o Gr a n i te S t a te In s

. Co

. v. No r d Bi t u mi U.S

., In c. ,

2 6 2 Ga. 5 0 2

, 5 0 4 (2 ) (4 22 SE2 d 1 9 1 ) (1 9 9 2 ) (4 6 day s i s n o t i m m ed i at e); Na va r r o v.

At l a n t a Ca s

. Co

. , 2 5 0 Ga

. A p p

. 5 5 0, 5 5 1 (5 5 2 SE2 d 5 0 8 ) (2 0 0 1 ) (fi n d i n g t h at

o b l i g at i o n t o i m

m ed iat el y n ot ify p o l i ce o f an acci d en t was n o t sat i sfi ed b y n o t i ce

g i v en fo u r o r fi ve d ay s l at er).

7It i s u n d i sp u t e d t h at Bram l ey fai l ed to n o t ify Nat i o nwi d e u n t i l ei g h t m o n t h s

aft er th e acci den t

. Th u s , as a m at t er o f law, Bram l ey fai l ed t o “ i m

m ed iat el y ” n o t i fy

Nat i o n w i d e as req u ired b y t he p o l i cy t erm s

. Th is d o es n o t en d ou r i n q u i ry , h o wev er,

b ecau s e we m

u s t co n s i d er wh et h er Bram l ey h as offered a reas on ab l e ju s t i fi cat i o n fo r

t h e d el ay

.

In s o m e ci rcu m s t an ces , we h av e h el d t h at “ an u n ex cu s ed s ig n i fi can t d el ay in

n o t i fy i n g an i n s u rer ab o ut an acci d en t o r l aws u i t m ay b e u nreas o n ab l e as a m at t er o f

l aw.” (C i t at i o n an d fo o t n o te o m i t t ed .) S h a r p e v. Gr ea t Mi d

wes t In s

. Co

. , 3 4 4 Ga.

Ap p

. 2 0 8 (8 0 8 SE2 d 5 6 3

, 5 6 9 (2 )) (2 0 1 7 ). Fo r i ns t an ce, lac k o f k n o w l e d g e o f UM

co v erag e o r of t h e n eed to u t il i ze s ai d co v erag e d o es n o t act as an ex cu s e t o a d el ay

i n n o t ifi cat i o n

. Id .; s ee al s o Co t t o n S t a t es Mu t

. In s

. Co

. v. Hi p ps , 2 2 4 Ga. Ap p

. 7 5 6,

7 5 6

- 75 7 (4 8 1 SE2 d 87 6 ) (1 9 9 7 ) (m i s t ak en b el ief t h at p ol i cy d i d n o t p ro v i d e UM

co v erag e was n o t a reas o n ab l e ex cu s e t o d el ay n o t i fi cat io n ). Ho wev er, i g n o ran ce as

t o t h e ex t en t o f in

ju ri es m ay ex cu s e a del ay an d i s gen eral l y a q u es t i o n fo r t h e ju ry

b ecau s e, u n l i k e d et erm i n i n g t h e ex i s t en ce o f co v erag e, t h e ex t en t o n i n ju ri es can t ak e

t i m e t o b e rev eal ed

. Pr og r es s i ve Mo u n t a i n In s

. Co

. , s u pra, 33 8 Ga. A p p

. at 1 1 9 -1 2 0

(2 ).

8Here, Bram l ey ex pl ai n ed h er fai l u re t o g iv e im m ed i at e n o t i ce as res u l t i n g fro m

h e r in ab i l i t y t o u n d ers t an d t h e ex t en t o f h er i n ju ri es u n t il earl y 2 0 16

. Un d er o u r

p r e c e d e n t

, t h is creat ed a ju ry q u es t io n as t o t h e wh et h er Bram l ey ’ s d el ay was

reas on ab l e. 1 See Pr og r es si ve Mo u n t a i n In s. Co

. , s u p ra, 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 19 -1 2 0 (2 )

(a j u ry m ig h t fi n d t h at i g no ran ce o f t h e ex t en t o f i n ju ry t o b e a s u ffi ci en t ju st i fi cat i o n

fo r a del ay i n n o t ice). W e t h erefo re co n c l u d e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n g ran t i n g

s u m m ary ju d g m e n t o n th is l i m i t ed b as i s

. Acco rd i n g l y , we rev ers e t he t ri al co urt ’ s

a w a r d o f s um m ary ju d g m en t o n t h i s b as i s , an d rem an d t h e cas e fo r fu rt h er

p ro ceed in g s o n t h e reas on ab l en es s o f Bram l ey ’ s ex p lan at io n fo r t h e d el ay

.

2

. In l i g h t o f o u r co ncl u s i o n i n Di v i si o n 1

, w e n eed n o t ad d res s Bram l ey ’ s

rem ai n i n g en um erat i o n of erro r.

Ju d g men t r ever

sed

, a n d ca s e r ema n d

ed

. Sen i o r Ap

p el l a t e Ju d

g e D o r o t h

y T.

Bea sl ey, co n cu r

s . An d r ews , J., d i s s en t

s

. *

* THI S OPI NI ON I S PHYSI CAL PRECEDENT ONLY. COURT OF APPEALS

RULE 3 3 .2 (a ).

1 La n kf o r d v. S t a t e Fa r m Mu t

. Au t o

. In s

. Co

. , 3 0 7 G a. Ap p

. 1 2

, 1 4 (7 0 3 SE2 d
4 3 6 ) (2 0 1 0 ), o n w h ich Nat io nwi d e rel i es , is d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e i n t hat t h e d ri v er i n t h at

cas e wai ted m ore th an a y ear aft er he h ad s u rg ery fo r h i s i n ju ri es t o p ro v i d e n o t i ce to

t h e i n s u rer.

9A1 8 A0 00 9

. BRAM LEY v

. NAT I O NW IDE AFFINITY

INSURANCE COM PANY OF AM ERICA.

A N D R E W S , J u d g e, d i ss en t i n g.

I d i s s en t, b ecau s e I b el i ev e t h e t ri al co u rt p ro perl y gran t ed s u m m ary ju d g m en t

fo r Nat i on wi d e o n t h e g ro u n d t h e ap p el lan t d id n o t g i v e t h e i n s u rer t i m el y n o t i ce o f

t h e acci d en t

.

Th e Nat i o n wi d e p o li cy i n t h i s cas e req u i red i m m ed i at e n o ti ce o f th e l o s s

. Th e

t raffi c acci d en t o ccu r r e d o n Au g u s t 1 7

, 2 0 1 5, bu t t h e ap p el l an t d i d n o t n o t i fy

Nat i o n w i d e o f th e i n ci den t u n t i l ei g h t m o n t h s l at er o n Ap ri l 2 0

, 2 0 1 6

. In h er

affi d av i t, t h e ap p el l an t ex p lai n ed t h at s h e d id n o t n o t i fy Nat i o n wi d e s o o n er b ecau s e

s h e h ad n o t seen t he i n su ran ce p o l icy ; s h e d i d n o t fu l l y r e al i ze t h e ex t en t o f h eri n

ju ri es u n t i l s h e v i s i t ed h er d o ct o r i n Jan u ary , Feb ru ary , an d M arch 2 0 1 6 an d

d i s co v ered h er p ai n l ev el had i n creas ed ; an d t h at s h e h ad n o t co ns i d ered pu rs u i n g an

u n i n s u red m ot o ri s t cl ai m u n t i l d i s cu s s i o n s wi t h her at t o rn ey aft er s h e d i s co v ered h er

p ai n l ev el h ad i n creas ed

.

Th e m ajo ri t y o p i n i o n det erm i n es t hat th e no t i ce req u i rem en t i n t h i s cas e was

a co n d i t i on p reced en t t o co v erag e u n d er t h e po l icy

, an d I ag ree wi th t h at

. Bu t rel y i n g

u p o n Pr o g r es s ive Mo u n t a in In s

. Co

. v. Bi s h o p
, 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p

. 1 1 5

, 1 1 9 -2 0 (7 9 0 SE2 d

9 1 ) (2 01 6 ), wh i ch i n vo l v ed a p o l i cy p ro v i s i o n t h a t req u i red n o t i ce o f acci d en t b e

g i v en “ pro m

p t l y ,” t h e m ajo ri t y al l o ws th e ap pel l an t ’ s i g no ran ce o f t h e ex t en t o f h er

i n ju ri es t o creat e a ju ry

q u es t io n wh et h er t h e d el ay ed n o t i ce was ju s t i fi ed

.

In Pr o g r es si ve Mo u n t ai n In s. Co

. , we eq u at ed t h e p ol i cy p ro v i si o n req u i ri n g

n o t i ce o f acci den t be g i v en “ p ro m p t l y ” wi t h o ne req u i ri n g no t i ce “ as s o o n as

p ract i cab l e.” An d “ [i ] n g en eral

, t h e q u es t io n o f wh et her an i n s u red g av e n ot i ce o f an

ev en t o r o ccu rren ce ‘ as s o o n as p ract i cab l e,’ as req u i red b y a p ol i cy o f i n su ran ce, i s

a q u es t i o n fo r t h e fact fi n der.” Pl a n t a t i o n Pi pel i ne v. Ro

ya l In d em. , 2 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 2 3,

2 5 (5 3 7 SE2 d 1 6 5 ) (2 0 0 0 ). In fact

, ev er y c a s e ci t ed by t he Co urt i n Pr og r es s i ve

Mo u n t a in In s. Co

. i n s u p p o rt o f fi n d i n g a ju ry q u es t io n i n v o l ved a p o l i cy p ro v i s i o n

req u i ri n g n o t i ce “ as s o o n as p ract i cab l e.”

2I b el i ev e t h e t ri al co urt p ro p erl y co n cl u ded as a m at t er o f law th at t h e ap p el l an t

d i d n o t s at i s fy t h e co nd i t i o n p reced en t o f p ro v i d i n g t h e i n s u rer t im el y n o ti ce o f t h e

acci den t

. Ev en ap p l y i n g t h e an al y s i s em p l o y ed i n “ as s o o n as pract i cab l e” cas es , t h e

ap p el l an t ’ s ei g h t m o n t h d el ay i n p ro v i d i n g n ot ice was u nreas o n ab l e. T here was n o

s u g g es t i o n o f a h i d d en i n

ju ry n ot d is co v ered u n t i l l at er, u n li ke Pr og r es s i ve M o u n t a in

In s

. Co

. , s u p ra at 1 1 9 -2 0

. Th e ap p el l an t cl ai m s s h e ju s t di d n ’ t real i ze t h e s ev eri t y o f

h er i n j u ri es u n t i l s h e wen t to h er d o ct or ap p ro x i m at el y fi ve m o n t h s aft er t h e acci d en t

.

Un awaren e s s o f t h e n eed t o u t i l i ze u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t “ co v erag e u n t i l s o m e p o i nt

aft er t h e acci d en t p ro v i d es n o ex cu s e.” La nkf o r d v. S ta t e Fa r m Mu t. A u t o

. In s

. Co

. ,

3 0 7 Ga. Ap p . 1 2 , 1 6 (7 0 3 SE2 d 4 3 6 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

Fu rt her, t h at ex p l an at i o n m ay n o t ev en b e t h e real reas o n t h e ap p el lan t d i d n ot

g i v e n o t i ce u n t i l ei g ht m o n t h s aft er t h e acci den t

. Rat her, i t ap pears fro m her affi d av i t

t h at s h e n ev er s aw t h e i n s u ran ce p o l icy an d d id n o t ev en co ns i d er th e av ai l ab i l i ty o f

u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e u n t i l s om e d i s cu s s i o n wi th h er at to rn ey f o l l o wi n g h er

d o ct o r v i s i ts s ev eral m o n t h s aft er t h e acci den t . Ig n o ran ce o f t h e ex is t en ce o r t erm s

o f i ns u ran ce co v erag e i s l ik ewi s e n o ex cu s e. Pr o t ect i ve In s

. Co

. v. Jo h n s o n , 2 5 6 Ga.

7 1 3 , 7 1 4 (1 ) (3 5 2 SE2 d 7 60 ) (1 9 8 7 ).

3In m

y v iew, t h e ap p el l an t ’ s s t at ed reas o n s fo r h er fai l u re to n o t i fy Nat i o n wi d e

o f t h e acci d en t u n t i l ei g h t m o n t h s aft erward s s i m p ly were u n reas o n ab l e as a m at t er

o f l aw. Fo r th at reas o n , I b el i ev e t h e t ri al co u rt p ro p erl y g ran t ed su m m ary ju d g m en t

fo r Nat i o n wi de.

4