Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Georgia car accident case involving the question of whether the plaintiff’s insurance company was responsible for his injuries, based on the policy’s uninsured motorist clause. Ultimately, the court determined that the accident was not within the scope of the plaintiff’s insurance policy because the vehicle involved in the accident was furnished for the plaintiff’s everyday use.
The Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, an employee of a logging company, was provided with a logging truck to help carry out his duties. The truck was owned by his employer, but the evidence suggested that the plaintiff was able to keep the truck overnight at his own residence once he was done working for the day.
One day, the two tires on the truck blew out. The plaintiff pulled over and called his employer, who arrived to assist in changing the tires. However, while the two were changing the tires, one of the tires blew out, injuring the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s employer had an insurance policy with a policy limit of $100,000. However, the plaintiff’s injuries exceeded $100,000, so the plaintiff filed a claim with his own insurance company under the uninsured motorist provision. The insurance company rejected the claim, and the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit in hopes of compelling the company to approve the claim.
The Court’s Decision
The insurance company argued that the accident was not covered under the policy’s uninsured motorist provision. Specifically, the company pointed to the language in the policy, defining an uninsured vehicle as “a motor vehicle, other than a motor vehicle owned by or furnished for the regular use of the named insured . . . as to which there is [inadequate coverage].” Thus, the insurance company argued that, since the vehicle was furnished for the plaintiff’s regular use, it did not qualify as an uninsured vehicle under the policy language.
The court agreed with the insurance company, finding that the truck was made available for the plaintiff’s everyday use. The court was not convinced by the fact that the plaintiff only kept the truck after hours two times. Instead, the court focused on the plaintiff’s ability – should he have chosen to exercise it – to use the vehicle more often. Finding that there were no restrictions on the plaintiff’s use of the vehicle, the court concluded that it was furnished for his everyday use, and thus it did not qualify as an uninsured vehicle under his insurance policy.
Are You Involved in an Insurance Dispute?
If you have recently been involved in a Georgia car accident and are currently dealing with a difficult insurance company, the Georgia personal injury lawyers at McAleer Law may be able to help. At McAleer Law, we have extensive experience representing victims in cases against reluctant and recalcitrant insurance companies. To learn more, call 404-622-5337 to schedule a free consultation to discuss your case with a dedicated Georgia personal injury attorney at McAleer Law.
See More Posts:
Georgia Court Discusses Government Immunity in Recent Construction-Zone Accident Case, Georgia Injury Attorney Blog, April 6, 2018.
Georgia Court Discusses Government Immunity in Recent Car Accident Case, Georgia Injury Attorney Blog, January 10, 2018.