Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
American Liberty Insurance v. Sanders
Citations: 169 S.E.2d 342; 120 Ga. App. 1; 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 657Docket: 44467
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; May 16, 1969; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Appellee, Sanders, obtained a judgment against an uninsured motorist and subsequently sued American Liberty Insurance Company for recovery under his policy's uninsured motorist coverage. He alleged entitlement to this coverage and claimed damages due to the company's failure to include it in his policy. The insurer countered that Sanders had explicitly rejected the uninsured motorist coverage in his policy application. The trial court ruled in favor of Sanders. The application, presented as evidence, contained a specific rejection of the uninsured motorist coverage, indicated above Sanders' signature. The broker testified that he explained the coverage to Sanders, who rejected it, although Sanders disputed this. The court ruled that Sanders could not testify to this point, as it would contradict the application terms, a ruling deemed appropriate by the appellate court. The appellate court noted that the absence of a technical reference to the record pagination did not hinder the consideration of the case due to its clear indexing. It confirmed that the rejection of uninsured motorist coverage in the written application complied with legal requirements, and no premium was charged for such coverage since it was not included in the issued policy. The court held that a written rejection in the application sufficed, negating the need for a separate rejection document, as further rejection would be redundant. Possession of an insurance policy for over three months prior to an accident provided the insured ample opportunity to review its terms, which indicated that uninsured motorist coverage was excluded due to a rejection made in the application. Insured individuals are assumed to understand their policy's conditions, even without actual possession. If they fail to do so, the responsibility lies with them. In the case at hand, the plaintiff's claim was reliant on the terms of the contract, and since a coverage he explicitly rejected was not included, he could not recover on that basis. Consequently, the evidence warranted a judgment in favor of the defendant, leading to a reversal of the previous judgment.