Many insurance policies provide benefits to people injured when the driver who is at fault is uninsured or underinsured. Previously, Georgia courts permitted payments made under an uninsured motorist policy to be offset by other benefits and payments such as workers’ compensation, disability benefits and property insurance. The underlying principle was to avoid duplicate payments. However, the Supreme Court of Georgia has now declared in Dees v. Logan that an award for damages in such a case may no longer be offset by these other benefits paid to the insured, specifically workers’ compensation and disability benefits.
The Georgia Code was amended in 2006 to require that all automobile liability insurance policies include “an endorsement or provisions undertaking to pay the insured damages for bodily injury, loss of consortium or death of an insured or for injury to or destruction of property of an insured under the named insured’s policy sustained from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle . . . .” In Dees, the Georgia Supreme Court determined that the new statute does not indicate that the state legislature intended for there to be a setoff. The insurance company argued that a provision in the Dees’ uninsured motorist policy allowed offset of the jury award for workers’ compensation benefits, social security benefits, and a pretrial settlement with the vehicle owner’s insurer given to the Dees. The Court – focusing its reasoning on the workers’ compensation setoff provision – rejected this argument, explaining that the new insurance statute found at O.G.G.A. § 33-7-11(i) specifically permits offsets for compensation received for property loss, but is silent as to setoffs for personal injury. The Court stated that if the legislature wanted to permit such setoffs, it should have specifically included them in the text of the statute. The Court continued by noting that an insurance policy provision that directly conflicts with the intent of a state statute, as here, is unenforceable as against public policy. Denying arguments that the Dees were recovering twice, the Court instead reasoned that they were receiving what they were due from the owner of the uninsured vehicle and the benefits to which they were otherwise entitled.
Look for the Georgia General Assembly to take this issue up in the current session.
For more information, please contact Tim Buckley at (404) 633-9230.
