Owens v. Progressive Premier Insurance Co.

Facts

In the case of Owens v. Progressive Premier Insurance Co., the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. The lawsuit was filed against the at-fault driver and the Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist carrier was served as required under the UM statute. The UM carrier filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, claiming the Plaintiff’s delay in giving notice of the accident was unreasonable. The trial court denied the motion and then granted it sua sponte one week later. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The Plaintiff, Calvin Owens, Jr., sustained injuries after another vehicle collided with his on January 26, 2019. That Defendant, Robbie Cope, carried an insurance policy with State Farm.

At the time of the accident, Owens lived with his sister. She maintained an automobile policy issued by Progressive. That policy did not identify Owens as a named insured or additional driver. It also did not list Owens’ vehicle. However, under the UM statute, Owens was covered as a resident relative.

Part IV of that policy provided that for coverage to apply, the person seeking coverage must promptly report each accident or loss. This provision applied even if the person seeking coverage was not at fault for the loss.

On January 27, 2020, one year and one day after the accident, Owens saw his sister’s policy might cover him as a resident relative. His attorney notified Progressive that day.

Owens filed a lawsuit against Cope on January 22, 2021. He served Progressive as the UM carrier.

Progressive answered the lawsuit and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. It claimed the policy required Owens to report the accident immediately, and waiting one year and one day to notify of the accident was unreasonable. The pleading also stated Owens’ reasons for the delay were not justified.

The trial court first denied the motion but later granted it sua sponte. Owens filed this appeal, claiming the court error.

Issue and Holding

Was the Plaintiff unreasonable and unjustified when he waited one year and one day to give notice of his claim?

Yes.

Reasoning

Whether an insurer received notice promptly is generally a question of fact for a jury. The insured must justify the delay to prevail over a Motion for Summary Judgment. If the policy does not give a timeline, there is no bright line on how much delay is too much. Owens, 365 Ga. App at 238.

Progressive required prompt reporting, and the Plaintiff’s only reason for the delay was that he did not know his sister’s policy would cover him until much later. However, facts and circumstances can render the delay unreasonable and unjustified, even if the policy does not state a hard deadline. Id. at 239.

Georgia law does not allow ignorance to be a reason to avoid the terms of a contract. This law applies here as well. Since the Plaintiff’s only reason for the delay was ignorance regarding his sister’s policy, the Court of Appeals agreed his oversight was unjustified. It also confirmed that the delay of a year and a day was unreasonable as a matter of law. Id.

Conclusion

Even if you do not believe the coverage may apply, it is important that you always ask clients if they live with any family members and to check those resident relatives’ policies. Coverage as a resident relative can help our client if the other driver is uninsured or underinsured.

Check these policies early in the claim and send notice immediately. That way, you have the coverage available if your client needs it.

To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you’re an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, please reach out here.

Citation: Owens v. Progressive Premier Insurance Co., A22A0694 (Ga. Ct. App. Sep. 1, 2022)