Court Opinion

ID: 9540240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:13:58.727339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:46.192441
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice,
dissenting.
While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that, at some point, the issue of satisfactory compliance with the notice requirements of an insurance policy can be resolved by the court as a matter of law, I am unwilling to hold the notice in this case was “unreasonable as a matter of law.” The rationale of the majority is that since Bates was aware that he had a claim for basic benefits under the policy at the time of the occurrence but declined to give the insurer notice until some 43 months later, his claim for optional benefits is barred as a matter of law. This rationale overlooks the fact that soon after this accident, Bates recovered his maximum basic no-fault benefits from Hartford, the insurer of one of the vehicles involved. Since Bates could recover basic no-fault benefits only once, regardless of the number of insurers providing such benefits, OCGA § 33-34-4 (c), he had no reason to give notice to other insurers providing the same coverage. Furthermore, the majority fails to take into account that the issue of whether Bates would have any right to seek optional PIP benefits was in a great state of confusion in this state at least until the decision in Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 156 Ga. App. 230 (274 SE2d 623) (1980). The period of delay after the Jones decision was approximately 18 months. A greater period than that amounted to a jury question in First Ga. Underwriters Co. v. Beck, 170 Ga. App. 68 (316 SE2d 519) (1984). In determining whether the notice in this case was given “as soon as practicable,” these circumstances make for a jury issue.
I am authorized to state that Justice Smith joins in this dissent.