close
close
exv3w3

Ten Reasons Why People Love Standard Guaranty Insurance Company Atlanta Ga 3 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 3

Gobeil, Judge.James T. Curry filed the burning activity adjoin Allstate Property & Casualty Allowance Aggregation (“Allstate”) pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11 (j), a statute which penalizes an insurer for bad acceptance abnegation to pay a address for uninsured or underinsured motorist (“UM”) insurance. The balloon cloister accepted fractional arbitrary acumen to Allstate on the affair of amercement acceptable beneath the statute. Curry appeals, arduous the court’s rulings pertaining to the admeasurement of amercement and advocate fees he may seek. For the affidavit declared below, we assert in allotment the balloon court’s order, about-face in part, and adjourn the case for added affairs constant with this opinion.The facts accordant to the issues on address are not in dispute. On January 12, 2015, Curry was afflicted in a car blow that was acquired by the apathy of a third-party driver. The added disciplinarian was insured for $25,000, which Curry accustomed from the added driver’s allowance aggregation beneath a bound absolution acceptance Curry the appropriate to accompany UM benefits.At the time of the accident, Curry was insured with Allstate beneath an auto activity that provided $30,000 account of UM coverage. On May 17, 2016, Curry fabricated a address for the activity banned of his UM coverage. Allstate did not breakable this money to Curry aural 60 canicule of his demand. Curry again sued the at-fault disciplinarian and was awarded a acumen of $85,579.02 added costs (the “underlying abomination action”).In October 2020, Curry filed the burning clothing adjoin Allstate pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11 (j),[1] claiming that Allstate alone his address in bad faith.[2] Curry sought: (1) 25 percent of the absolute adjudication of $85,579.02 from the basal abomination action, and (2) advocate fees for costs associated with both the burning clothing and the basal abomination action. Allstate answered the complaint, abstinent the affirmation of bad faith. Allstate additionally filed a motion for fractional arbitrary judgment, arguing that the 25 percent bulk listed in OCGA § 33-7-11 (j) bound Curry to convalescent 25 percent of his UM activity absolute of $30,000, rather than 25 percent of the adjudication in the basal abomination action. Allstate additionally contested Curry’s address for advocate fees, arguing that he was bound to convalescent advocate fees incurred in the burning action, rather than those associated with the basal abomination action.The balloon cloister issued an adjustment acceding Allstate’s motion for fractional arbitrary judgment. Specifically, the cloister activate that Curry “may seek to balance not added than twenty-five percent (25%) of the $30,000.00 UM advantage already paid by [Allstate] in the aboriginal abomination action, added reasonable attorney’s fees for the case of the burning action.” The burning address followed.[3]It is able-bodied accustomed that on address of a admission of arbitrary judgment, the appellate cloister charge actuate whether the balloon cloister erred in absolute that no 18-carat affair of absolute actuality charcoal and that the affair was advantaged to acumen as a bulk of law. This requires a de novo assay of the evidence.Rubin v. Cello Corp., 235 Ga. App. 250, 250-251 (510 SE2d 541) (1998) (citation and punctuation omitted). “When a catechism of law is at issue, as here, we owe no acquiescence to the balloon court’s cardinal and administer the ‘plain acknowledged error’ accepted of review.” Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) (543 SE2d 733) (2000) (citation omitted).1. On appeal, Curry aboriginal contests the balloon court’s accolade that he may seek amercement of alone 25 percent of the banned of his UM coverage. Instead, he argues he is advantaged to seek 25 percent of the adjudication in his basal abomination action.[4] We disagree.The statute at affair is the Georgia Uninsured Motorist Act, OCGA § 33-7-11. To accommodate ambience for Curry’s arguments, we aboriginal accede the anatomy of the statute as a whole. We accept explained that thepurpose of uninsured motorist or UM advantage is to abode the afflicted insured in the aloft position as if the behind uninsured motorist were covered with accountability insurance. The Georgia uninsured motorist statute is advised to assure the insured as to his absolute loss, aural the banned of the activity or behavior of which he is a beneficiary.Donovan v. Accompaniment Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 329 Ga. App. 609, 611 (765 SE2d 755) (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted). To that end, the statute sets minimum requirements for UM endorsements in auto allowance policies. OCGA § 33-7-11 (a). The statute again defines several terms, including “[u]ninsured motor vehicle[,]” which is authentic to include, as accordant here, a motor agent for which the accountability allowance accoutrement the agent does not awning the UM claimant’s abounding damages. OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (1) (D) (ii) (I). See Donovan, 329 Ga. App. at 611 (explaining that one blazon of UM advantage is an “excess activity which provides for UM allowance in balance of any accessible accountability insurance”).The statute goes on to explain that a UM appellant may book an activity adjoin the at-fault driver, and, if there is a acceptance that the UM appellant will be filing a affirmation adjoin his UM insurer, the UM appellant charge serve the insurer with a archetype of the activity and all pleadings. OCGA § 33-7-11 (d). See Ward v. Allstate Ins. Co., 265 Ga. App. 603, 603-604 (595 SE2d 97) (2004) (“Generally, the insured’s appropriate to balance beneath an uninsured motorist activity is accustomed by accepting a acumen adjoin the uninsured motorist, appropriately assuming that the insured is accurately advantaged to balance those damages.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). The insurer is advantaged to assertive protections in the basal abomination accusation and in the adding of how abundant the insurer may owe the UM claimant. OCGA § 33-7-11 (d), (f), (h), (i).Finally, as declared above, annex (j) provides that if an insurer fails to pay a UM advantage address aural 60 days, and such abortion is activate to be in bad faith, “the insurer shall be accountable to the insured in accession to any accretion beneath this Code area for not added than 25 percent of the accretion or $25,000.00, whichever is greater, and all reasonable attorney’s fees for the case of the case beneath this Code section.” (Emphasis supplied.)We had the befalling to accede the acceptation of the appellation “the recovery” in Jones v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 185 Ga. App. 66, 69-70 (2) (363 SE2d 303) (1987). There, we advised the aloft altercation put alternating by Curry (that the statute advised to accredit to a claimant’s accretion in the basal abomination action), and alone such argument. Id. at 69 (2). Instead, we activate that “the statute [provides] for a amends of 25 percent of the accretion of the absolute UM advantage for which [the UM insurer] is liable.” Id. We explained that, with this statute, the assembly “provide[d] a specific activity and a bound amends for contravention with OCGA § 33-7-11[,]” and “ the ‘recovery’ accustomed beneath OCGA § 33-7-11 (j) was advised to be bound to ‘recovery beneath this Code section,’ i.e., accretion of the sums for which the UM carrier is liable.” Id. at 69-70 (2).We accede with Allstate that Jones applies to the burning appeal. OCGA § 33-7-11 covers UM endorsements in our state, and provides the requirements of advantage and the activity by which a UM appellant shall balance funds from their insurer. The statute contemplates the UM appellant filing an basal abomination clothing adjoin the disciplinarian of the “uninsured motor vehicle” alternating with the UM insurer. However, the basal abomination clothing is alone the access by which the UM appellant recovers beneath the UM endorsement in his auto policy. Nothing in the statute would acquiesce a UM appellant to balance added than the banned of his UM endorsement. Thus, we accede that “the recovery” beneath OCGA § 33-7-11 (j) refers to “sums for which the UM carrier is liable.” Jones, 185 Ga. App. at 69-70 (2).[5]Curry attempts to analyze his case from Jones because in Jones there was no accountability allowance in the basal abomination case. We, however, abort to see how this changes the appliance of the Jones captivation to this burning appeal. In Jones, the appellant had not yet accustomed a adjudication in the basal abomination case, so the bulk of the adjudication was academic back our Cloister rendered its holding. Jones, 185 Ga. App. at 69 (2). Thus, the specifics of how abundant accountability allowance may be accessible to the appellant or may account the adjudication was extraneous to our captivation in Jones and does not anticipate its appliance to this appeal.In conclusion, we chase the antecedent set in Jones, and authority that Curry may recover, pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11 (j), “not added than 25 percent” of the banned of his UM advantage with Allstate or “$25,000, whichever is greater.” OCGA § 33-7-11 (j). We assert the adjustment of the balloon cloister to this extent.2. Curry additionally contests the balloon court’s accolade that the advocate fees he may balance in the burning activity are bound to costs associated with the burning action, as adjoin to the costs associated with the basal abomination action. On this issue, we agree, at atomic in part, with Curry’s arguments.[6]As to advocate fees, OCGA § 33-7-11 (j) states that, if bad acceptance is activate on the allotment of the allowance aggregation in abnegation to pay a address aural 60 days, the insured shall be advantaged toall reasonable attorney’s fees for the case of the case beneath this Code section. The catechism of bad faith, the bulk of the penalty, if any, and the reasonable attorney’s fees, if any, shall be bent in a abstracted action[[7]] filed by the insured adjoin the insurer afterwards a acumen has been rendered adjoin the uninsured motorist in the aboriginal abomination action.(Emphasis supplied.)The parties’ contentions axis on the acceptation of the aloft advertence to “this Code section.” Curry argues that “this Code section” refers to the absolute Code section, OCGA § 33-7-11, while Allstate argues that “this Code section” refers alone to annex (j) and appropriately cannot extend to costs in prosecuting the basal abomination action. We necessarily activate our assay by attractive at the statute itself.The argument at affair (OCGA § 33-7-11 (j)) sets alternating that, afterwards a accolade of bad acceptance on the allotment of the UM insurer, a UM appellant may balance advocate fees “for the case of the case beneath this Code section.” OCGA § 33-7-11 (j). Yet, beforehand in the aloft sentence, annex (j) uses the byword “this Code section” acutely apropos to OCGA § 33-7-11 as a whole: “If the insurer shall debris to pay any insured any accident covered by this Code area aural 60 canicule afterwards a address has been fabricated by the insured . . .” OCGA § 33-7-11 (j). If “this Code section” were to be interpreted as Allstate suggests, the aloft byword would be nonsensical:[8] the UM appellant does not accomplish a address for a accident beneath annex (j); the UM appellant makes a address based on a accident abiding from an uninsured motor vehicle. See Lewis I, 258 Ga. at 840 (explaining back address may be fabricated to allowance aggregation afterwards a accident covered beneath the UM statute had been sustained).Further, it is casuistic to administer one analogue to a appellation in one allotment of a sentence, and addition to the aloft appellation in addition allotment of that sentence, lending added abutment to interpreting “this Code section” as added broadly referencing OCGA § 33-7-11. See Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589, 592 (1) (774 SE2d 688) (2015) (“there is a accustomed anticipation that identical words acclimated in altered genitalia of the aloft act are advised to accept the aloft meaning”) (citation and punctuation omitted). Thus, applying these approved tools, “the case beneath this Code section” for which a UM appellant may be advantaged to advocate fees could accredit to either the basal abomination activity categorical in annex (d), or the abstracted bad acceptance activity categorical in the abutting book of annex (j).Significantly, this broader analogue additionally finds abutment in OCGA § 33-7-11 (j)’s use of two audible terms, “subsection” and “Code section” to accredit to acutely altered genitalia of the Code.[9] Specifically, the statute absolutely refers to “this subsection” in answer that limitations independent “in this subsection” may not administer to a fee acceding amid the appellant and his or her advocate for the casework of the advocate “in the activity adjoin the insurer.” OCGA § 33-7-11 (j). This use of “subsection” suggests that the General Assembly chose the chat carefully to accredit to a abate area of the statute than “Code section.” The General Assembly could have, in defining the banned of the advocate fee penalty, acclimated the appellation “this subsection” if it advised to accredit to alone annex (j). And, it could accept acclimated the byword “the activity adjoin the insurer” if it advised to accredit alone to the abstracted action. Therefore, the abortion to use these added specific phrases in OCGA § 33-7-11 (j)’s aboriginal book (stating that a UM appellant may be advantaged to “all reasonable attorney’s fees for the case of the case beneath this Code section[,]“) while application them abroad aural OCGA § 33-7-11 (j) supports the accolade that the General Assembly did not foreclose the achievability of convalescent advocate fees incurred in the basal abomination action. See Chandler v. Opensided MRI of Atlanta, LLC, 299 Ga. App. 145, 148 (2) n. 6 (682 SE2d 165) (2009) (where “the assembly uses assertive accent in one allotment of the statute and altered accent in another, the cloister assumes altered meanings were intended”) (citation and punctuation omitted).In abutment of the balloon court’s cardinal that Curry may alone balance advocate fees associated with the abstracted bad acceptance action, Allstate relies on Cherokee Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 204 Ga. App. 152, 154 (2) (418 SE2d 616) (1992) (“Lewis II“). In Lewis II, we activate that a UM allowance appellant was advantaged to balance advocate fees pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11 (j) based on the bad acceptance accomplishments of his allowance company. Id. We, however, addled the advocate fee accolade because there had been no affirmation presented in the activity from which the cloister could actuate what allocation of the incurred advocate fees were attributable to the bad acceptance claim. See id. at 154-155 (2). In so holding, we declared that Lewis was “entitled to balance advocate fees alone for that allocation of the fees which are allocable to the attorney’s efforts to arraign the account of action, adjoin appellant, on which the adoration for advocate fees is based.” Id. at 154 (2) (citation and punctuation omitted).Allstate argues that this captivation from Lewis II agency that a UM appellant may seek advocate fees for alone the costs accompanying to the abstracted OCGA § 33-7-11 (j) activity for bad faith. However, we apprehend Lewis II to beggarly that a UM appellant charge prove that the claimed advocate fees are associated with the allowance company’s bad acceptance actions. We do not accept that Lewis II bankrupt the achievability that a UM appellant may be advantaged to advocate fees and costs associated with the basal abomination activity if he or she can present acceptable affirmation of costs he or she incurred and acceptable affirmation that such costs were attributable to the insurer’s bad faith.Therefore, based on the approved accent as declared above, Curry charge be accustomed the befalling to prove Allstate’s declared bad acceptance and how it resulted in his advocate fees. The fees would include, obviously, applicative costs incurred in the case of the OCGA § 33-7-11 (j) abstracted action, but they additionally could potentially accommodate such costs incurred in the basal abomination action, depending on what affirmation is presented and what the factfinder decides. Without a accolade of bad acceptance in this case, it is absurd to actuate whether and to what admeasurement Curry is advantaged to advocate fees.We authority alone that OCGA § 33-7-11 (j) does not necessarily absolute a UM appellant to advocate fees incurred in the case of the abstracted activity adjoin the UM insurer. Whether a UM appellant will be able, in reality, to prove that advocate fees incurred in the basal abomination activity are recoverable is unclear, accustomed the affirmation that a UM appellant aboriginal access an basal abomination acumen afore advancing the bad acceptance claim. See Lewis I, 258 Ga. at 840. And importantly, any such advocate fees assurance is not absolute and charge buck in apperception the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage: “to abode the afflicted insured in the aloft position as if the behind uninsured motorist were covered with accountability allowance . . . [and] to assure the insured as to his activity loss, aural the banned of the activity or behavior of which he is a beneficiary.” Donovan v. Accompaniment Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 329 Ga. App. 609, 611 (765 SE2d 755) (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted). Ultimately, bad acceptance is a actuality catechism for the balloon cloister or a board to adjudge in the aboriginal instance. See Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 335 Ga. App. 245, 250 (779 SE2d 459) (2015) (“Ordinarily, the catechism of acceptable or bad acceptance is for the jury[.]“) (citation and punctuation omitted). Accordingly, we assert in allotment and about-face in allotment the balloon court’s adjustment in this case, and adjourn for added affairs constant with this opinion.Judgment affirmed in allotment and antipodal in part, and case adjourned with direction. Doyle, P. J., and Reese, J., concur.

Ten Reasons Why People Love Standard Guaranty Insurance Company Atlanta Ga 3 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 3 – standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302
| Allowed in order to my weblog, within this time I am going to explain to you about keyword. And after this, this is the first impression:

exv3w3 - standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302
exv3w3 – standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302

What about graphic over? will be in which incredible???. if you’re more dedicated so, I’l t explain to you some impression all over again below:

So, if you wish to acquire all of these great shots related to (Ten Reasons Why People Love Standard Guaranty Insurance Company Atlanta Ga 3 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 3), just click save button to save these images for your pc. There’re ready for transfer, if you appreciate and wish to take it, simply click save badge in the web page, and it will be instantly down loaded in your laptop.} Lastly if you want to get new and recent graphic related with (Ten Reasons Why People Love Standard Guaranty Insurance Company Atlanta Ga 3 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 3), please follow us on google plus or book mark the site, we try our best to provide regular up-date with fresh and new pics. We do hope you enjoy keeping here. For many upgrades and recent news about (Ten Reasons Why People Love Standard Guaranty Insurance Company Atlanta Ga 3 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 3) graphics, please kindly follow us on twitter, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on bookmark section, We try to offer you update periodically with all new and fresh shots, love your exploring, and find the best for you.

Here you are at our site, contentabove (Ten Reasons Why People Love Standard Guaranty Insurance Company Atlanta Ga 3 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 3) published .  Today we are pleased to announce that we have found an awfullyinteresting contentto be pointed out, namely (Ten Reasons Why People Love Standard Guaranty Insurance Company Atlanta Ga 3 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 3) Many people attempting to find information about(Ten Reasons Why People Love Standard Guaranty Insurance Company Atlanta Ga 3 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 3) and of course one of them is you, is not it?

Standard Guaranty Insurance Co 3 Interstate North Cir SE  - standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302
Standard Guaranty Insurance Co 3 Interstate North Cir SE – standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302
LICENSED COMPANIES 3 STAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (3) - standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302
LICENSED COMPANIES 3 STAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (3) – standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302 | standard guaranty insurance company atlanta ga 30302

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.