Court Opinion

ID: 9575495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:14:18.459513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:14.918093
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
1. Generally, questions as to the sufficiency of the excuse offered and diligence in giving notice to the insurer are questions of fact for determination by a jury. Erber v. INA, 134 Ga. App. 632 (2) (215 SE2d 528) (1975). To ascertain what is reasonable diligence and a reasonable time for providing notification, the courts will examine the insured’s explanation for the delay. See Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. J. *643B. Forrest &c., 132 Ga. App. 714, 719 (2) (209 SE2d 6) (1974), involving notice of the summons. Jerry Ginn’s lack of knowledge regarding the policy’s provisions as to the matter of coverage under undisputed facts is ignorance of the contents and thus not a viable excuse for failure to give notice. Richmond v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 140 Ga. App. 215, 220 (2) (231 SE2d 245) (1976).
Our cases have recognized that the issue of whether the insured believes there was an accident or loss might remain for the jury. This would occur when there was a reasonable basis for the insured to conclude that the incident was so trivial or lacking in severity or that the possibility of liability was so implausible or specious that informing his insurance company was not réquired. See Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Carswell, 192 Ga. App. 103, 104 (384 SE2d 213) (1989); Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Miller, 183 Ga. App. 261 (358 SE2d 611) (1987); State Farm &c. Ins. Co. v. Sloan, 150 Ga. App. 464, 468 (4) (258 SE2d 146) (1979).
Here the collision was a serious one, defendants were made immediately aware of the fact they were considered to be involved in the incident despite no contact with other vehicles, Jerry was charged with a related offense, and yet they took no action for almost two years. This supported the decision that failure to give notice was, as a matter of law, inexcusable. See Caldwell v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co., 192 Ga. App. 419, 420 (2) (385 SE2d 97) (1989); International Indem. Co. v. Smith, 178 Ga. App. 4 (342 SE2d 4) (1986); Richmond, supra; Erber, supra.
2. Next comes the issue of whether the decisions of Starnes v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 194 Ga. App. 320 (390 SE2d 419) (1990), aff’d Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Starnes, 260 Ga. 235 (392 SE2d 3) (1990), and Rucker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 Ga. App. 407 (390 SE2d 642) (1990), conflict. This issue was not covered by the trial court and not raised by defendants. It is addressed by State Farm in its supplemental brief. Rucker is closer to the facts here and should be followed. The special concurrence in Rucker was merely explanatory and did not detract from or dilute the agreement with the majority. Prejudice is a matter not germane to lack of notice of the accident or loss. See Sloan, supra at 466 (1). Compare OCGA § 33-7-15 (b).
If public policy on liability is to reject, for third party protection, the lack of notice of the incident defense, or if public policy is to require prejudice to be shown, the Supreme Court should so decide. See Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., 248 Ga. 350 (282 SE2d 115) (1981). Precedent does not compel it.
I am authorized to state that Judge Birdsong joins in this dissent.
*644Decided July 16, 1990
Rehearing denied July 31, 1990 — Cert, applied for.
Rodger E. Davison, for appellants.
Andrew J. Hill III, for appellee.