FI RST DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, M CM I LLI A N and R EESE, JJ.

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

phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d in 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

June 13, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 03 9

. J ONES v

. FEDERATED M U TUAL INSURANCE

COM PANY.

B A R N E S , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

Verl i n d a an d Kev i n J on es ap p eal th e s u m m ary ju d g m en t en t ered ag ai n s t t h em

an d i n fav o r o f Fed erat ed M u t ual In s u ran ce Co m p an y

. Th ey co n t es t t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

ru l i n g t h at t h ey were v al i d ly ex cl u ded fro m u n i n su red m o t o ri s t co v erag e p ro v i d ed by

a p o l i cy i s s u ed b y

t h at co m pan y . Fo r reas o ns t h at fo l l o w , we affi rm

.

S u m m a r y ju d g m en t i s p ro p er “ i f t h e pl ead i n g s

, d ep o s i t i on s

, an s wers t o

i n t erro g at o ri es

, an d ad m i ss io n s o n fi l e, t o g et her w i th t he affi d av i ts

, i f an y

, sh o w t h at

t h ere i s no g en u in e i s s ue as t o an y m at eri al fact an d t h at t h e m o v i ng p art y i s en t i t l ed

t o a ju d g m en t as a m at ter o f l aw.” OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (c). “ In o u r d e n o vo rev i ew o f t h e

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

, we m

u s t v i e w t h e ev i d en ce, an d al lreas o n ab l e i n feren ces d rawn t h erefro m

, in t he l i g ht m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e

n o n m o v an t .” (Ci tat io n an d p u nct u at i on o m it t ed .) Co wa r t v. W i d en er

, 2 8 7 Ga. 6 2 2,

6 2 4 (1 ) (a) (6 9 7 SE2 d 7 7 9) (2 01 0 ).

So v iewed

, t he reco rd s h ows t h e fo l l o w i n g

. On Ap ri l 3

, 2 0 1 5

, t h e Jo n es es were

t es t -d ri v i n g a car o wn ed by Fi v e St ar Au t o m o t i v e Gro u p, wh en t h at car was rearen d ed b y a v eh icl e b ei n g d ri v en by Ras h o d Lam ar. Nei t h e r o f t h e J o nes es h ad a

p ers o n al au t o m o b il e i n sur a nc e polic y

. S e e king to r e c ove r d a m ag es fo r al l eg ed i n ju ri es

fro m t h e car wreck

, t h e J o n es es fi l ed t h e i n s t an t ac t i o n

. T h e y n am ed L am ar as a

d efen d an t

, an d t h ey s erv ed a co p y o f th e act i o n up o n Fed erat ed M u t u al

, w i t h wh i ch

Fi v e St ar h ad an i n s u ran ce p o l icy (“ Po l i cy ”) at t h e t i m e o f t h e co ll i si o n

. 1 Th e J o n es es

accep t ed t h e l i ab i l i t y l i m i t s fro m L a m ar’ s i n s u rer an d ex ecu ted a l i m i t ed l i ab i l i t y

rel eas e p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 3 3 -2 4 -4 1 .1

, 2 t h ereb y ex h au st i ng al l l i ab i l i t y co v erag e. 3

1 See OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (d ).

2 See g en eral l y Da n i el

s v. Jo h n s o n

, 2 7 0 G a. 2 8 9

, 29 0 (2 ) (5 0 9 SE2 d 4 1 ) (1 9 9 8 )

(“ Th e leg i s l at u re en act ed OCGA § 3 3 -2 4 -4 1.1

. . . t o m ak e m ean i n g fu l th e ab i l i ty o f

a cl ai m an t t o s et t l e wi t h t h e t o rt feas o r’ s i n s uran ce carri er wh i l e p res erv i n g h i s [u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t ] cl ai m .”).

3 See i d

. at 2 9 1 (2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h at “ i f t h e p l ai nt i ff s et t les fo r th e l i m i t s o f t h e [t ort feas o r’ s ] po l i cy as s t at ed i n t h e p o l i cy an d ex ecu t es a l i m i t ed rel eas e in

acco rd an ce wi t h OCGA § 3 3 -2 4 -4 1 .1

, t h e pl ai n t i ff m ay p u rs u e h i s [u n i n s u red

m o to ri s t ] cl ai m .”)

2M ai nt ai ni n g

, h o wev er, t hat t h ei r m ed i cal b i l ls s t em m i n g fro m t h e car wreck ex ceed ed

t h e am o u n t s recei v ed fro m Lam ar’ s i n s u rer, t h e J o n es es s o u g h t u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t

co v erag e u n der t he Po l icy p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1

, t h e G eo rg i a Un i n s u red

M o t o ri s t Act (“ UM St at u t e”). 4

Fed erat ed Mu t u al m o ved fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, a s s e r ti ng t h at t h e Po l i cy

affo rd ed t h e J o n es es n o u n i n s ured m o to ri s t co v erag e. In suppor t o f i t s m o t i o n

, Fed eral

M u t u al p res en t ed ev i d en ce th at wh en Fi v e St ar p ro cu red t h e Po l i cy an d t h u s d eci d ed

t h e s co p e o f co v erag e i t wo u l d o b t ai n

, Fi v e St ar’ s au t ho ri zed rep res en t at i v e ex ecu t ed

a “ Geo rg i a Co m

m erci al Au t o m o b i l e Un i n s ured M o t ori s t s Co v erag e Op ti o n Fo rm ”

(t he “ Un i n s ured M o t o ri s t Pro v i s i o n ”) s el ect i ng t h ereo n a $ 1 ,0 0 0,0 0 0 u ni n s u red

m o to ri s t co v erag e li m i t fo r “ d i rect o rs

, o ffi cers

, p art n er s o r own ers o f t h e n am ed

i n s u red an d fam i l y m em b ers wh o q u al i fy as an i n s u red .” O n t h at s a m e f o r m

, a s

Fed erat ed M u t u al fu rt h er p o i nt ed o u t

, Fi v e St ar’ s au t h ori zed rep res en t at i v e ex p res s l y

r ej ect ed u ni n s u red m o t o r i s t c o v erag e fo r “ an y o t h er p ers on wh o qu al i fi es as an

i n s u red .” At th e t i m e o f t h e co l l i s i o n

, as t h e Jo n es es s t i p u l at ed , n ei th er o f t h em was

4 See F CCI In s

. Co

. v. McLen d o n E n t er p r i s es

, 2 9 7 Ga. 1 3 6

, 1 3 7

, n

. 2 (7 7 2

SE2 d 6 51 ) (“ If t h e [t o rt feas o r] m o t o ri s t i s un i n s u red o r un d eri ns u r e d

, t h e st at u t o ry

ch aract eri zat i o n i s t h at o f ‘ un i n s u red .’ ”), ci t i n g OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (b ) (1 ) (D) (i i ).

3a d i rect o r, o ffi cer, o wn er, o r p art n er o f Fi v e St ar, n o r was ei th er a fam i l y m em b er o f

an y Fi v e St ar d i rect o r, o ffi cer, o wn er, o r p art n er.

No t wi t h s t an d i n g

, t h e J o n es es o pp o s ed Fed erat ed M u t u al ’ s m o t i o n on g ro u nd s

t h at t h e Un i n s u red M o t ori st Pro v i s i o n

– wh i ch res u l t ed in “ ti ered ” u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t

c o v e r a g e (fo r d ifferen t g ro u p s o f i n d i v i d ual s )

– w as v o i d as co n t rav en in g b o t h t h e

p l ai n l an g u ag e o f th e UM St at u t e an d Geo rg i a’ s p u b l i c p o li cy

. Th erefo re, t h e J o n es es

u rg ed th at t h e $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 o pt i o n ap p l i ed to th em each as an “ i ns u red ” i n acco rd an ce

wi t h t h e UM St at u t e.

Aft er a h eari n g

, t h e t ri al co u rt ru l ed i n fav o r o f Fed erat ed M u t u al

. It as cert ai n ed

t h at t h e p l ai n term s o f t h e U n in s u red M o t o ri s t Pro v i s i o n rev eal ed t h e co n t ract i n g

pa r t ie s ’ i n t en t t o ex cl u d e u n in su red m o t o ri s t co v erag e fo r p ers o n s s u ch as t h e J o n es es

.

An d i n reject i n g t h e Jo n es es ’ arg u m en t s t h at t h e Un i n su red M o t o ri s t Pro v i s i o n was

v o i d

, t h e t ri al co u rt rel ied o n Cr o u ch v. Fed er a t ed Mu t

. In s. Co

., 2 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 0 4

( 5 7 1 S E2 d 5 7 4 ) (2 0 0 2 ), wh ich u p h el d t i ered u ni n s ured m ot o ri s t co v erag e ( f o r

d i fferen t g ro u p s o f i n d iv i d u al s ) as co n t rav en i n g n ei t h er law n o r p u b l ic p o l i cy

. Id

. at

6 0 6 (a). Th e tri al co u rt g ran t ed Fed erat ed M u t u al ’ s s u m m ary ju d g m en t m o t i o n

, an d

t h e J o n es es ap p eal

.

41

. W e fi rs t rev iew t he ap p l i cab l e st at ut o ry an d co n t ract u al fram ewo rk

. “ In

G e o r g i a

, a n i n s u rer m ay fi x t h e t erm s o f it s p o l icy as i t wi s h es

, i n s u ri ng ag ai n s t

cert ai n ri sk s an d ex cl u di ng o t hers

, p ro v i d ed t h e t erm s are n o t co n trary t o l aw.” Hu r s t

v. Gr a n g e Mu t . Ca s. Co ., 2 66 Ga. 7 1 2 , 7 16 (4 ) (4 7 0 SE2 d 6 59 ) (1 9 9 6 ).

W h en an u n i ns u red m o t ori s t po l i cy p ro v i s i o n i s i n co n fl i ct wi t h t h e cl ear

i n t en t o f OCGA § 3 3-7 -1 1

, t h e p o li cy p ro vi s i o n i s u n en fo rceab l e an d th e

s t at u t e co n t ro l s

. Ex cl u s i o n s i n u n i ns u red m ot o ri s t en do rs em en t s can n o t

ci rcu m v en t t he cl ear m an d at e o f th e [UM St at u t e] b y wi th h o ld i n g th e

p ro t ect i o n req ui red

.

(Ci t at i o n s an d pu n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed

. ) Dees v. Lo g a n

, 2 8 2 G a. 8 1 5, 8 16 (6 5 3 SE2 d 7 3 5 )

(2 0 0 7); s ee H

a r t f or d Acci d en t & In dem. Co

. v. Bo o k e r

, 1 4 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3

, 4 (1 ) (2 3 0

SE2 d 7 0 ) (1 9 7 6 ).

In rel ev an t p art

, t h e U M St at u t e s t a t e s i n p arag rap h (a) (1 ), “ No au t o m o b i l e

l i a b i l i t y p o l i cy o r m o t o r v eh icl e l iab i l i t y p o li cy s h al l be i ss u ed o r d el i v ered i n t h i s

s t at e

. . . u n l es s i t co n t ai n s an en d o rs em en t o r p ro v is i on s u n d ert ak i ng to p ay t h e

i n s u red d am ag es fo r b o di l y i n ju ry

. . . s u st ai ned fro m t he o wn er o r op erat o r o f an

u n i n s u red m ot or v eh i cl e.

. . .” Bu t p arag rap h (a) (3 ) o f t h e UM S t a t u t e s t at es

, “ Th e

co v erag e req u ired u n d er p arag rap h (1 ) o f t h is s u b s ect i on s h al l n o t b e ap p l i cab l e

wh ere an y in s u red n am ed in t h e p o l i cy s hal l reject t h e co v erag e i n wri t i ng .” To g et h er,

5t h es e p arag rap h s p ro v i d e t h at u n i n s u red m o to ri st “ co v erag e m u st ap p ear i n ev ery

[au t o m o b i l e l i ab i li t y ] p o l i cy u nl es s reject ed i n w ri t i n g b y t he i n su red n am ed i n t h e

p o l i cy .” Do e v. Ra m

p ley

, 2 5 6 Ga. 5 7 5

, 5 77 (1 ) (3 5 1 SE2 d 2 0 5 ) (1 9 8 7 ); s ee al s o Jo n es

v. G a

. F a r m Bu r ea u Mu t u al In s

. Co

., 2 48 Ga. Ap p

. 3 9 4

, 3 9 6 (5 4 6 SE2 d 7 9 1 ) (2 0 0 1 )

(“ Al t h ou g h an i n s u rer i s req u i red t o o ffer [u n in s u red m o to ri s t ] co verag e i ni t i al l y

, a

i n s u red i s n o t req ui red b y t h e s t at u t e t o carry [u n i n su red m o t o ri s t ] co verag e.”).

W e t h u s t u rn t o th e Po l i cy b ecau s e “ [co u rt s] m u s t em p l o y th e s t an d ard ru l es o f

co n tract c o n s t r u ct i o n t o d et erm i n e t h e m ean i n g o f t he pro v i si o n s o f an i n s u ran ce

p o l i cy .” Own er

s In s

. Co

. v. S

mi t h Mech a n ica l Co n t r act o r s

, 28 5 Ga. 8 0 7

, 8 08 (2 ) (6 8 3

SE2 d 5 9 9 ) (2 0 09 ). In t h i s cas e, t h e nam ed i n s u red was Fi v e St ar. W h ere, as h ere, “ t h e

t erm s an d co n d i t i on s o f an i n s u ran ce co n t ract are cl ear an d u n am b i g u ou s

, t hey m

u s t

b e g i v en t h ei r li t eral m ean i n g .” Ad a ms v. A t l a n t a Ca s

. Co

. , 23 5 Ga. Ap p. 2 8 8, 2 8 9 (1 )

( 5 0 9 S E 2 d 6 6 ) (1 9 98 ); s ee S mi t h v. S t o d

d a r d

, 2 9 4 Ga. Ap p

. 6 7 9

, 6 82 (1 ) (b ) (6 6 9

SE2 d 71 2 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (“ Un d er Geo rg i a l aw, c o n t r a ct s o f i n s u ran ce are i n terp ret ed by

o rd i n ary ru l es o f co n t ract co n s t ru ct i o n

. W h ere t h e t erm s are cl ear an d u n am b i g u o u s

,

an d cap ab l e o f o n l y o n e reas o n ab l e i n t erp ret at i o n

, t h e co u rt is t o l o o k t o t h e co n t ract

al o n e t o as cert ai n t he p art i es ’ i n t en t .”) (ci tat i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

6Acco rd in g ly

, t h e t ri al co urt co rrect l y as cert ai n ed t h at th e p l ai n term s o f t h e Un i n s u red

M otor ist P r ovi s i o n rev eal ed t h at t h e co n t ract i n g p art i es in t en d ed t o ex cl u d e uninsur e d

m o to ri s t co v erag e fo r p ers on s s u ch as t h e J o nes es

. See Cr o u ch

, 2 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 0 7

-

6 0 8 (c) (reject i n g i n

ju red m ot ori s t ’ s cl ai m o f en t i t l em en t t o p u rs u e m ax i m um am o u nt

o f u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e p ro v i d ed b y a t i ered p o li cy

, wh ere t h e l an gu ag e o f t h e

p o l i cy p l ai n l y ex cl u ded t he m o t o ri st from t hat o p t i o n ). Ev en t h e Jo n es es ack n o wl ed g e

i n t h ei r ap p el l at e b ri ef t h at

, in ex ecu t i n g t h e Un in s u red M o t o ri s t Pro v is i o n

, “ Fi v e St ar

ch o s e t o p ro v id e s ig ni fi can t p ro t ect i o n to i t s o wn own ers an d d i rect o rs [an d o t h er

d es i g n at ed i n di v i d u al s ,] w h il e t o t al l y ex cl ud i n g al l o t h ers wh o wo u l d o b v i ou s l y [ 5 ] b e

u s i n g t h e v eh i cl es .”

2

. In an effo rt t o es cap e t h e s u m m ary ju d g m en t ru l i n g an d to es t ab l i s h t h at t h e

$ 1 ,0 0 0

, 0 0 0 o p t i o n o f u n in s u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e ap p l i es t o t h em

, t he J o n es es

reas sert o n ap p eal t h at t h e Un i n s u red M o t o ri s t Pro v i s i o n i s v o i d as co n trav en i n g : (a)

t h e UM St at u t e; an d (b ) Geo rg i a’ s p u b l i c p o l i cy

. See g en eral l y Mer r i l l v. Lee

, 3 0 1 Ga.

3 4

, 36 (2 ) (7 9 9 SE2 d 1 6 9 ) ( 2 0 1 7) (“ Part i es m ay es t ab l i s h co n t ract t erm s o n a n y

5 T h e J o n es es i n cl u d ed th e wo rd “ ob v i o u s l y

, ” as t h e J o nes e s e x p l a in i n t h ei r

b ri ef, b e c au s e “ Fi v e St ar s el l s cars an d ro ut i nel y al l o ws t h e p u b l i c t o t es t d ri v e i t s

v eh icl es .”

7s u b

ject m at t er i n wh i ch t h ey h a v e an i n t eres t s o l o n g as t h ei r ag reem en t i s n ot

p ro h ib i t ed b y

s t at u te o r p ub l i c p o l i cy .”) (ci tat i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

(a) Co n t en d i n g t h at t he Un in s ured M o to ri st Pro v i s i o n ru n s afo u l of G eo rg i a’ s

UM St at u t e, t h e J on es es p res en t t h e fo l l o wi n g t wo arg u m en t s

.

(i ) Fi rs t

, t h e J o n es e s e m

ph as i ze t h at t h e UM St at u t e s et s fo rt h a d efi n i t i o n o f

“ i n su red ” t h at i n cl u d es “ an y pers o n wh o u s es

, wi th t h e ex p res sed o r i m p li ed co n s en t

o f t h e n am ed i n s u red

, t he m o t o r v eh i cl e t o wh ich t he p o l icy ap pl i es .” OCGA § 3 3 -7

-

1 1 (b ) (1 ) (B). M ai n t ai n i n g t h at t h ey fel l wi t h i n t h at d efi ni t i o n

, th e J on es es arg u e t h at

t h e gran t o f s u m

m ary ju dg m en t t o Fed erat ed Mu t u al i m p erm i s s i b l y d i s reg ard ed t h at

s t at u to ry d efi n i ti o n.

Th i s co n t en t io n l ack s m eri t b ecau se, as ex p lai n ed ab o v e, p arag rap h (a) (3 ) o f

t h e UM St at u t e ex pres s l y au t h o ri zes n am ed i n s u red s

– s u ch as Fi v e St ar i n t h e i n s t an t

cas e – t o reject i n w ri t i n g t he u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co verag e req u i red b y t h at s t at u t e’ s

p arag rap h (a) ( 1 )

. S e e OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (a) (1

, 3); Na t. Un i o n Fi r e In s

. Co

. v.

Jo h ns o n

, 1 8 3 G a. Ap p

. 3 8

, 3 9 (3 5 7 SE2 d 8 5 9 ) (1 9 87 ) ( e x p l ai n i ng th at cl ai m by

em pl o y ee fo r u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e u nd er t h e em pl o y er’ s au t om o b i l e l i ab i l i t y

p o l i cy was p ro p erl y reject ed

, w here t he em p l o y er as t he “ n am ed i n su red ” h ad reject ed

i n wri t i n g u n i n s ured m ot o ri s t co v erag e p urs u an t t o OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (a) (3 )); s ee al s o

8No l ley v. Md

. Ca s u al t y In s

. Co

., 2 2 2 Ga. Ap p

. 9 0 1

, 9 0 3 (3 ) (4 7 6 SE2 d 6 2 2 ) (1 9 9 6 )

(d et erm i n i n g t h at

, b ecau s e a g arag e was n o t req u i r e d b y l aw t o carry

u n i n s u red / u n d eri n s u red m o t o ri s t i n s u ran ce, t h en it co u l d n o t b e req u i red t o offer s u ch

i n s u ran ce t o a cu s t o m er u s i ng a l o an er v eh i cl e).

Al t h ou g h t h e Jo n es es h av e ci t ed u s t o St a t e F a r m Mu t u al A u to In s

. Co

. v.

Mu r p h y

, 2 2 6 Ga. 7 1 0 ( 1 7 7 SE2 d 2 5 7 ) (1 9 7 0 ), t h at cas e i s i nap p o s it e. A l t h o u g h

Mu r p h y co n cl u d ed t h at a p o li cy p ro v is i o n ex cl u di n g u ni n sur e d m otor ist c ove r a ge was

v o i d as co n t rary t o t h e UM St at u t e, i d. at 7 1 3 -7 1 4

, t h at cas e d i d n o t co n cern a n am ed

i n s u red ’ s wri t t en reject io n o f u n i n s u r ed m o t o ri s t co v erag e. Id

. at 7 1 0 -7 1 3

. Acco rd

D o e

, 2 5 6 Ga. at 5 7 7 (1 ) (d et erm i n i n g t h at a p ol i cy p ro v i s i o n ex cl u d i ng u n i n s u r e d

m o to ri s t co v erag e was i n effect i v e as co n trary t o t h e UM S t a t u t e, wh ere i t was n ot

“ s av ed by t h e fo rce o f OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (a) (3 ) al l o w i n g th e i ns u red to wai v e

u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co verag e,” b ecau s e t he reco rd co nt ai ned n o wri tt en wai v er o f

u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e, an d b ecau s e “ t h e accep t an ce of a p o l i cy w i t h a n o n

co n fi rm i n g u n i n s u red m ot o ri st p ro v i s i o n i s n o t s u c h a wai v er as t h e s t at u t e

co n tem p l at es ”).

(i i) Th e J o nes es ’ s eco n d at t ack u p o n t he Un i n s ured Mo t o ri s t Pro v i s i o n as

ru l i n g afo u l o f t he U M St at u t e a s s ert s t h at t h e UM St at u t e al l o w s a n am ed i n s u red

9ei t h er “ t o ch o o s e an am o u n t o f u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e o r t o reject u n i n s u r e d

m o to ri s t co v erag e i n i ts en t i ret y [,] b u t n ot t o d o b o t h .” (Em

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

Th e J o n es es h av e p o i n t ed t o n o l an g u ag e wi t h i n t h e UM St at u t e as i m p o s i n g

an “ al l o r n o th in g ” res t ri ct i o n u p o n u n i n su red m ot o ri s t co verag e; an d we fi n d n o ne.

Had t h e l eg i s l at u re i n t en d ed fo r a reject i o n o f u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co verag e as t o an y

o n e s t at u t o ri l y -d efi n ed “ in s ured ” t o ap p l y t o al l o t h er s t at u t o ri l y -d efi n ed “ i n s u red s ,”

i t co u l d h av e s ai d s o ; b u t it d i d n o t

. See Jo n es

, 2 4 8 Ga. Ap p. a t 3 9 6

- 3 9 7 (reject i n g

cl ai m an t ’s co n t en t i o n t hat s h e rem ai n ed el i g i b l e fo r “ ex ces s ” u n i ns u red m o t o ri s t

co v erag e b ecau s e s h e had n o t reject ed i t in wri t i n g

, reas o n i ng t h at t h e UM St at u t e,

“ o n i t s face, d o es no t req u i r e a n i n s u rer to o bt ai n a wri t t en reject i o n o f ex ces s

co v e r a g e

, ” an d t hat “ [i ] f t h e l eg i s lat u re m ean t fo r t h e reject i o n feat ure t o ap p l y

eq u al l y t o

. . . ex ces s co verag e, i t w o u l d h av e s ai d s o ex pl i ci t l y ”); Na t

. Un i o n Fi r e

In s

. Co

. , 1 83 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 9 (“ If t h e l e g i s l at u re h ad i n ten d ed an y fu rt h er fo rm al

req u i s i t es fo r t h e reject i o n o f u n i n s u red m o to ri s t b en efi t s

, we m u s t p res u m e i t wo u ld

h av e s p eci fi ed th em .”). An d b ecau s e “ [t ] h ere i s n o t h i ng i n [t h e s t at ut e] i m p o s i n g s u ch

a req ui rem en t

, . . . we w i ll n ot ju d i ci al l y l eg i s l at e o n e.” Ki g h t v. MCG Hea l t h

, 2 9 6 Ga.

6 8 7

, 6 8 9 (1 ) (7 6 9 SE2 d 9 2 3 ) (2 0 1 5 ); s ee Ab d u l ka d ir v. S t a t e

, 27 9 Ga. 1 2 2

, 1 2 4 (2 )

10(6 1 0 SE2 d 5 0) (2 0 0 5 ) (“ A co u rt o f l aw i s n o t au t h o ri zed t o rewri t e th e s t at u t e by

i n s ert i n g ad d i t io n al l an g u ag e t h at wo u ld ex p an d i t s ap p l i cat i on .”).

In d eed

, th e t ri al co u rt co rrect l y d et erm i n ed t h at t h is i s s u e is co n tro l led b y t h e

an al o g o us cas e o f Cr o uch

, 2 57 Ga. Ap p . at 6 0 4 , wh i ch u p h el d t h e n am ed i n s u red ’ s

freed o m o f co n t ract t o ch o o s e t iered u n i n s u red m ot o ri s t co verag e. Id

. at 6 0 5 -6 0 6 (a).

In Cr ou ch

, an i n d i v i d u a l w as d ri v i ng a car b el o n g i n g to an au to m o b i l e d eal ers h ip

wh en t h e car co l l i d ed wi th an o t h er v eh i cl e. 2 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 0 4

. Th e i n d i v i d u al

s o u g ht un i n s u red m o t o ri s t b en efi t s u n d er t h e d eal ers h i p ’ s au t o m ob i l e l i ab i li t y p o l i cy

,

wh i ch s p l i t u n i ns u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e i n t o t wo o pt i o n s

. Id

. On e o p t i o n cap p ed s u ch

co v erag e at $ 1,0 0 0,0 0 0 fo r “ d i rect o rs

, o ffi cers

, part n ers

, o r o wn ers ” o f t h e d eal ers h ip

an d i ncl ud ed i n su ch l i m i t a “ fam il y m em b er” wh o qu al i fi ed as an i n s u red ; t h e o t h er

o p t i o n cap p ed u ni n s u red m o to ri st co v e r a g e at $ 4 0 ,0 00 fo r “ an y o th er p ers o n

q u al i fy in g as an ‘ in s ured .’ ” Id

. Th e i n d i v i d u al s eek i n g u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t s b en efi t s

was n o t a d i rect or, o ffi cer, part ner, o wn er of t h e d eal ers h ip

, n o r a fam i ly m em b er o f

an y s u ch p ers o n

.

No t wi t h s t an d i n g

, t h e i n d i v i d u al at tem p t ed t o es t ab l i s h t h at t h e $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

o p t i o n o f u n i n s u red m o t ori st co v erag e ap p l i ed t o h er, arg u i n g t h at “ t h e t w o o p t i on s

o f UM co v erag e co nt ai n ed i n th e Fed erat ed p o li cy are n o t p erm i t t ed u n der Geo rg i a

11l aw.” Cr ou ch

, 2 5 7 Ga. A p p. at 6 0 5 (a). Reject i n g t h at arg u m en t

, t h i s Co u rt es p o u s ed

,

“ As l o n g as t he m an d at o ry UM m i n i m u m i s m et an d o p ti o n al UM co v erag e i s o ffered

p u rs u an t t o s t at u t ory req u i rem en t s

, a co m b i n at i o n o f s u b l i m i t s an d i n t eres t s res t ri ct ed

t o n am ed i n s u red s an d res i d en t rel at i v es co n t rav en es n ei t h er t h e l aw n o r p u b l i c

p o l i cy .” Id

. at 60 6 (a). Th u s ru l i n g i n fav o r o f t h e i n s u ran ce co m p an y

, we rei t erat ed :

“ [I] n s u ran ce p ol i ci es are n o t ex cep t ed fro m t he g en eral p ri n ci pl e o f freed o m o f

co n tract

. An i n s u ran ce co m p an y m ay fi x t h e t erm s o f i t s p o l i c i e s a s i t wi s h es

,

p r o v i d ed t h ey are no t co nt rary t o l aw, an d i t m ay i n su re ag ai n s t cert ai n ri s k s an d

ex cl u d e o t h ers

. ” Id . at 6 0 5 (a).

Th e J o n es es p o i nt o u t t h at t h e i n s u ran ce p o l i cy unde r ly ing C r ouc h a l l o t t ed each

g ro u p at l eas t s o m e am o un t o f c o v erag e. Bu t th at d i s t i n ct i o n d o es no t l ead t o an

o u t co m e i n t hei r fav o r. M at eri al h ere i s t h at

, in b o t h Cr ou ch an d t h e i ns t an t cas e, t h e

t i ered o p t i o n s ch o s en b y t h e n am ed i n su red s were ex p res s ly p er m i t t e d b y t h e UM

St at u t e.

No t ab l y

, o t h er ju ri s di ct i o n s wi t h u ni n s u red m o t o ri st s t at ut o ry p ro v i s i on s

s i m i l ar t o t h e UM St at u t e’ s p ro v i s i o n s at i s s u e h e r e h av e u p h el d t i ered u n i n s u red

m o to ri s t co v erag e i n acco rd an ce w i t h th e n am ed in su red s ’ el ect i o n s

. S e e

, e.g

.,

Va u gh n

, 9 6 1 So 2 d at 81 9 -8 2 0 ( I I ) (A) (reject i n g arg u m en t t h at a n am ed i n s u red ’ s

12d eci s i o n t o accep t UM co verag e fo r s o m e i ns u red s p rev en t ed i t fro m reject i n g UM

co v erag e fo r o t h er i n s u red s

, wh ere t h e g o vern i n g s t at u t e al l o wed t h e n am ed i n s u red

t o reject u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e t o t al l y , an d wh ere “ n o t h i n g i n t h e t ex t o f [t h e

g o v ern i n g s t at u t e] prev en t ed [a n am ed i n s u red ] fro m reject i n g U M co v erag e fo r [o n e

cat eg o ry o f i n su red s ] w h i l e accep t i n g UM co v erag e fo r o t h er i n s u red s ); S t o ms v.

Fed er a ted S vcs

. In s. Co

., 1 2 5 A3 d 1 1 0 2

, 1 10 7 -1 1 0 8 (III) (B) (Del

. 2 0 1 5 ) (u ph o l d i n g

as u n am b i g u o u s a car d eal ers h ip ’ s i n s u ran ce p ol i cy t h at p ro v i d ed u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t

c o v erag e o n l y “ fo r d i rect o rs

, o ffi cers

, p art n ers or o w n ers ” o f t he d eal ers h i p

, wh ere

t h e d eal ers h i p h ad co m

p l i ed wi t h t h e g o vern i n g s t at u t e au t h o ri zi n g i t t o “ reject [] in

wri t in g

, o n a fo rm fu rn i s h e d b y t h e i n s u rer” un i ns u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e fo r “ an y

o t h er p ers o n wh o q u al i fi es as an i ns u red ”).

(b ) Fi n al l y

, t h e J on es es co n t en d t h at t h e t wo o p t i o n s o f un i n s u red m o t o ri s t

co v erag e co n t ai n ed i n t h e Un i n s u red M ot o ri s t Pro v i s i o n rai s e “ a s i gn i fi can t p u b l i c

p o l i cy co n ce rn .” As s ert i n g t h at t h e UM St at u t e “ d o es n o t d i s cri m i n at e ag ai n s t a d ri v er

wh o i s n ot fi nan ci a l l y o r fam i l i arl y co n n ect ed t o t h e n am ed i ns u red

, ” t h e J o n es es

cl ai m t h at t h e $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 o p ti o n s h o u l d b e affo rd ed t o t h em al s o

.

“ [T] h e l eg i s l at u re

. . . i s em p o wered b y t h e Co n s t i t u t i o n t o d eci d e p u b li c p o l i cy

,

an d t o i m p lem en t t h at p o l i cy b y en act i n g laws .” Co mmo n wea l t h In ves t men t Co

. v.

13Fr

ye

, 2 1 9 Ga. 49 8

, 49 9 ( ) (1 3 4 SE2 d 3 9 ) (1 96 3 ), ci t ed i n W o o d cr a f t b y Ma cDo n a l d,

In c. v. Ga

. Ca s. & Su r

. Co

., 2 9 3 G a. 9

, 1 1 -1 2 (7 4 3 SE2 d 3 7 3 ) (2 0 1 3 ); Cr o wd er v.

Dep t. o f S t at e Pa r

ks

, 2 2 8 G a. 4 3 6

, 4 4 0 (3 ) (1 8 5 SE2 d 9 0 8 ) (1 9 71 ) (“ [P] ub l i c p o l i cy

. . . ad d res s es it s el f t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e, n o t t h e ju d i ci al

, b ran ch o f o u r St at e

g o v ern m en t .”). An d as o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as l o n g h el d

, “ [t ] h e p o wer o f t h e co u rt s

t o d ecl are a co n t ract [p ro v i s i o n ] v o i d fo r b ei n g i n co n trav en t i o n o f a s o u n d p u b l i c

p o l i cy i s a v ery d el icat e an d u n d efi n ed p o w er, an d

. . . s h ou l d b e ex erci s ed o n ly in

cas es free fro m d o u b t.” Co t to n S t a t e Mu t ua l In s

. Co

. v. Nees e

, 2 54 Ga. 3 3 5

, 3 3 7 (1 ),

n

. 4 (3 2 9 SE2 d 1 3 6) (1 98 5 ), q uo t i n g Eq u it a b l y Lo a n & c. Co

. v. W

a ri ng

, 1 1 7 Ga. 5 9 9,

5 9 9 (1 ) (4 4 SE 3 2 0 ) (1 9 0 3).

Th e J o n es es h av e no t s peci fi ed wh i ch p u b li c p o l i cy t h ey cl ai m i s v i o l at ed ; n o r

h av e t h ey d em on s t rat ed t h at t h ei r g en eral i zed p u b l i c p o li cy c o n t e nt i o n is free fro m

d o u b t

. Here, each o p t i o n s el ect ed o n t h e Un i n s u red M ot o ri s t Pro v i s i o n

– (i ) o n e

s el ect i n g “ ex ces s ” un in s ured m o t o ri s t co v erag e; an d (i i ) t h e o t h er reject i n g u n i n s u red

m o to ri s t co v erag e

– i s ex p res s ly au t h o ri zed b y th e UM St at u t e. OCGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 (a)

(1

, 3 ). A n d “ [t ] h e l eg is l at i ve en act m en t o f a s t at u te i s a co n cl u s i ve ex p res s i o n o f

p u b l i c p o l i cy .” Vi ll a n u eva v. Fi r st A mer i ca n Ti tl e In s. Co

., 2 9 2 Ga. 6 3 0, 6 3 2 (7 4 0

SE2 d 1 0 8 ) (2 0 1 3). A cco rd F o u n t a i n

, 2 04 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 6 7 (3 ) (reject i ng co n t en t i o n

14t h at t h e ex cl u s i o n o f u n i n s u red m ot o ri s t co v erag e fo r n am ed d ri v er v i o l at ed p u b l i c

p o l i cy ).

M o re p o i n t ed l y

, i t i s cl ear t h at t h e Jo n es es t ak e i s s u e s p e ci fi cal l y wi t h Fi v e

St a r ’ s r ej ect io n o f u n i ns u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e. Bu t n am ed in s u red s m ay reject in

wri t in g u n in s u red m o t o ri s t co verag e. OCGA § 33 -7 -1 1 (a ) ( 3 )

. A s t h i s Co u rt h as

d i s cern ed

, “ [a] s a m at t er o f p u b l i c p o l i cy , [a] wri t t en reject i o n i s req u ired : (1 ) t o b e

cert ai n t h at i n s u rers n o t i fy i n s u red s ab o u t t h e UM co v erag e av ai l ab l e t o th em an d (2 )

t o en co u rag e, wi t h o u t req ui ri n g

, d ri v ers t o el ect t o carry t he m in im u m am o u nt o f UM

co v erag e.” (Em

p h as i s o m i tt ed .) Jo n es

, 2 4 8 G a

. A p p

. at 3 9 7

. W e are s at i s fi ed t h at

t h es e i nt eres t s were s erv ed i n t h e i n s t an t cas e.

O t h e r ju ri s d i ct io n s wi t h co m p arab l e un i n s u red m o t o ri s t s t at u t o ry p ro v i s i o n s

h av e reject ed s i m i l ar p u b i c p ol i cy ch al l en g es t o t i ered u n i n s u red m o t o ri s t co v erag e.

See, e.g

., Va u g h n

, 9 6 1 So 2 d at 8 1 9 -8 2 0 (II) (A) (reject i n g arg u m en t th at p u b l i c p o l i cy

i s v i o l at ed by em

p l o y er’ s i n su ran ce p o l i cy th at p ro v i d ed u n in s u red m ot o ri s t co v erag e

o n l y t o cert ai n cat eg o ri es o f em p l o ye e s

, b ecau s e “ [t ] he l an gu ag e o f [t h e g o v ern i n g

s t at u te] d o e s n o t s u p p o rt

, l et al o n e req u i re, t h i s i n t erp ret at i o n ,” an d b ecau s e “ t h e

g reat er t y p i cal l y i ncl u d es t h e l es s er, t h e ri g h t t o reject t o t al ly UM co v erag e i m p li es

t h e ri g h t t o reject i t part i al l y ”); S t o ms

, 1 2 5 A3 d at 1 10 6 (III) (reject in g p u b l i c p o l i cy

15ch al l en g e to a n e m p lo y er’ s in s u ran ce p o li cy t h at p ro v i d ed u n in s u red m o t o ri s t

co v erag e o n l y t o cert ai n cat eg o ri es o f em pl o y ees

, b ecau s e “ [t ] o h o ld t h at an y

co v erag e ab o v e th e s t at u t o ry m i n i m u m

. . . h as t o b e affo rd ed to al l wh o b en efi t fro m

a p o l i cy wo u l d d i s s u ad e em pl o y ers fro m b u y i n g an y t h i n g ab o v e th e st at u t o ry

m i n i m u m ”).

W e are m i nd fu l t h at t h e UM St at u t e “ res u l t ed fro m p u b l i c co n cern o v er

i n creas i ng ly freque nt ha

r dsh i p s i m

p o s ed u p o n p ers o n s s u s tai n i n g b o d i l y an d p ro p ert y

d am ag e cau s ed b y

u n i n s u red an d fi n an ci al l y i rres p o n s i b l e m o t o ri s ts .” Mu r p h y

, 2 2 6

Ga. at 7 1 2. Bu t fo r al l t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s

, t h e J o n es es h av e es t ab l i s h ed n o erro r in

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t h at t h ey were v al i d l y ex cl u ded fro m u ni n s u red m o t o r i s t

co v er ag e affo rd ed u n der t h e Po l i cy

. Co n s eq u en t l y

, t h ey h av e s u p p li ed u s wi t h n o

b as i s fo r rev ers i n g t he g ran t o f s u m m ary j u d g m en t en t ered in fav o r o f Fed erat ed

M u t u al

. See g en eral ly Tr a vel er s Ho me & Ma r i n e In s

. Co

. v. Ca s t e l l a n o s

, 2 9 7 Ga.

1 7 4

, 1 7 6 (1 ) (7 7 3 SE2 d 1 84 ) (2 0 1 5 ) (r e i t erat i n g t h at an i n di v i d u al “ cl ai m i n g an

i n s u ran ce b en efi t h as t he b u rd en o f p ro v i n g th at a cl ai m fal l s wi t h i n t h e co v erag e o f

t h e p o li cy ,” an d “ [t ] h u s, t o es t ab l i s h a p ri m a faci e cas e o n a cl ai m u n d er a p o l i cy

o f

i n s u ran ce [t h at i n d iv i d u al ] m us t s h o w t h e o ccu rren ce was wi t h i n th e ri s k i n s u red

ag ai n s t ”) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ); La mb er t v. Al f a Gen

. In s

. Co r

p

., 2 9 1 Ga.

16Ap p

. 5 7 (6 6 0 SE2 d 8 8 9) (2 0 0 8 ) (affi rm i n g th e g ran t o f su m m ary ju d g m en t t o i n s u rer

o n i s su e o f am o u n t o f u n in su red m o to ri st co verag e, wh ere n o am b i g u i t y i n t h e

i n s u ran ce co n t ract ex i s t ed

, an d wh ere t h e i n su rer was s t at u to ri ly p erm i t t ed t o ab i d e

b y t he po l i cy h ol d er’ s wri t t en d i rect i v es p ert ai n i n g to t h e am o u n t o f su ch co v erag e

affo rd ed ).

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . McMi l l i a n a n d

Rees e, JJ., co n cu r

.

17