Court Opinion

ID: 9849760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:45:42.931978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:25.780115
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Presiding Justice,
concurring specially.
1. Bohannon v. J.C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co.1 established a bright-line rule requiring plaintiffs with uninsured motorist (UM) coverage to serve the UM carrier in every case, even when the defendant had insurance. The clarity of this rule avoided the confusion and complexity that would arise if courts had to determine when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the defendant’s uninsured state and whether the plaintiff acted diligently once on notice. I now conclude, however, that the judicial convenience created by Bohan-non does not outweigh the resulting harshness. A lawyer who fails to comply with Bohannon deprives his client of the benefit of the UM insurance contract and leaves the client with no remedy except a malpractice suit against the lawyer. I agree that this is neither a satisfactory nor fair rule. Therefore, I concur in the majority’s result, which effectively overrules Bohannon. I, however, would do so expressly.
2. The majority exempts suits against UM carriers from any statute of limitations requirement. Rather than adopt such a broad rule, I would adopt the rule suggested by Justice Weltner in his dissent in Bohannon and require plaintiffs to serve the UM carrier “as soon as reasonably possible after becoming aware, by whatever means, that there is a substantive doubt as to the existence of adequate insurance coverage of an event that might become the subject of an uninsured motorist claim.”2 This rule would alleviate the harshness of Bohannon in cases such as this where the defendant became uninsured after the running of the statute of limitations. It also has the advantage of providing a defense when the plaintiff’s lack of dili*614gence in service is prejudicial.

 259 Ga. 162 (377 SE2d 853) (1989).

 Id. at 163-164.