Court Opinion

ID: 9626398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:10:46.084492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:26.714612
License: Public Domain

Blackburn, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the opinion and judgment as rendered due to our previous holding in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Drawdy, 217 Ga. App. 236 (456 SE2d 745) (1995). Although I dissented in Drawdy, the majority’s position therein is presently the law, and therefore, we are compelled to follow it. I specially concur to point out that Cotton States’ reliance on Drawdy is correct as that case controls the outcome herein.
In the present case, it is undisputed that in the action against the Hipps, the counterclaimants maintain liability and uninsured *758motorist coverage with Travelers Insurance Company. Therefore, the issue before us is identical to the issue in Drawdy. In Drawdy, State Farm appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment contending that its insured’s failure to notify it of the accident as soon as reasonably practicable excluded coverage. Therein, the majority recognized that “[b]ased on [the] public policy of ensuring some recovery for injured third parties, we have held that a lack-of-notice exclusion generally is not enforceable, against a third party injured by an insured who fails to notify his insurer.” Id. at 237. However, the majority held that “the public policy of ensuring some recovery for the third party is satisfied by the third party’s access to a recovery through uninsured motorist coverage.” Id. at 239. Therefore, under the facts of this case Cotton States’ lack-of-notice exclusion is enforceable and the trial court should have granted Cotton States’ motion for summary judgment.
Decided February 20, 1997.
Parkerson, Shelfer & Groff, William S. Shelfer, Jr, for appellant.
Magill & Bondurant, Thomas E. Magill, Webb & Lindsey, Eric K. Maxwell, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Bradley S. Wolff, for appellees.
I am compelled to note that I believe my dissent in Drawdy sets forth a better position. My dissent noted that because liability insurance is required to ensure compensation for innocent victims of negligent motorists and uninsured motorist coverage is for the protection of its insured’s assets, the liability insurance carrier should be precluded from enforcing a lack-of-notice exclusion in third-party situations. Id. at 242. As I stated in my dissent, the majority’s position in Drawdy, “ignores the fact that public policy provides that victims should be compensated primarily by liability insurance and that uninsured motorist coverage was intended to be secondary or backup coverage. It also ignores the shift in premium costs from the tortfeasors to the victims.” Id. at 243.