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.
Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Smith
Citations: 171 Ga. App. 475; 320 S.E.2d 261; 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2241Docket: 67836
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; July 3, 1984; Georgia; State Appellate Court
On September 29, 1980, William E. Smith applied for “no-fault” automobile insurance with Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, who subsequently issued a policy effective October 19, 1980. Following the death of Smith's wife, Helen Marie Smith, in a car accident covered by this policy on July 7, 1981, Georgia Farm Bureau paid Mr. Smith $10,000 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. However, after requesting an additional $40,000 in PIP benefits and tendering an extra premium, Georgia Farm Bureau denied the claim, prompting Smith to file a lawsuit for the additional benefits and for penalties and attorney fees due to the alleged bad faith refusal to pay. The trial court determined that the insurance policy provided for $50,000 in PIP benefits from its inception because the application form lacked the necessary signature spaces for the applicant to accept or reject optional coverage as mandated by OCGA § 33-34-5 (a-b). The application consisted of a single page signed by Smith, with checkboxes indicating desired coverage. While Smith had checked the box for $10,000 PIP coverage, he left the boxes for $5,000, $25,000, and $50,000 empty. The application contained an acknowledgment stating that the absence of a check indicated rejection of that coverage. In a relevant ruling from the Supreme Court case Tolison v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., it was found that an identical application form did not substantially comply with OCGA § 33-34-5 (b), confirming that Georgia Farm Bureau's application form did not meet legal requirements. Consequently, the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Smith was upheld. The judgment was affirmed by the reviewing court, with judges Been and Sognier concurring.