Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Our serious injury lawyers have previously written about the importance of uninsured motorist coverage. There are many nuances in the Georgia uninsured motorist coverage statutes and case law with which every attorney should be familiar.

One principle, pronounced by the Supreme Court in Thurman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 278 Ga. 162, 598 S.E.2d 448 (2004) involves uninsured motorist benefits after payment of subrogation claims to health and/or workers’ compensation insurers. In Thurman, the Supreme Court held that reimbursement to a health or workers’ compensation insurer reduced available coverage under the liability policy, thereby making UM coverage available.

The plaintiff in Thurman was a postal carrier for the United States Postal Service who was injured on the job when her truck was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for more than defendant’s insurance policy with limits of $100,000. Eventually, the plaintiff and her husband settled with the defendant for the amount of $95,550.19, policy limits reduced by the amount paid the United States Postal Service for damage to the postal truck.

Because the plaintiff had received payments for lost wages and medical expenses from her employer’s workers’ compensation carrier pursuant to the Federal Employees Compensation Act and from her employer’s group health insurance carrier pursuant to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, those two carriers claimed subrogation rights from the proceeds of the settlement. The defendant’s liability insurance carrier issued three checks, one to the plaintiff, one to the worker’s compensation carrier, and one to the group medical insurance carrier. As a result, the plaintiff received $60,887.87.

The plaintiff then turned to her uninsured motorist carrier, State Farm, contending that the defendant was uninsured since their $75,000 in UM coverage exceeded the net proceeds, $60,887.87, which they received from the liability carrier. The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs petition for writ of certiorari. In it’s holding, the Supreme Court determined that the subrogation payments made by the defendant’s liability insurer for the worker’s compensation carrier and to the group medical insurance carrier constituted a “payment of other claims or otherwise” which thereby reduced the amount of available coverage under the defendant’s insurance policy to less than the amount of UM coverage the plaintiffs had with State Farm.

This is a very important holding. It is essential that every attorney practicing serious injury law be aware of this case. Failure to obtain available coverage under a UM policy under the circumstances addressed in Thurman would be a disservice to one’s clients.