Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Freeman

485 S.E.2d 738, 268 Ga. 60, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1511, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 172
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 5, 1997
DocketS96G1790
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 485 S.E.2d 738 (Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Freeman, 485 S.E.2d 738, 268 Ga. 60, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1511, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 172 (Ga. 1997).

Opinions

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

In 1989, Sarah Freeman applied for motor vehicle liability coverage from Southern Fire and Casualty Company and rejected optional personal injury protection coverage. After a collision, she sued Southern contending that the application did not meet the statutory requirements for offering optional coverage. The trial court granted her motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed.1 We granted the writ of certiorari to determine whether her application satisfied the requirements of OCGA § 33-34-5 (b) concerning optional coverages. Because Freeman signed an application with boldface type that complied with the statute and this Court’s decision in Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Goddard,2 we reverse.

OCGA § 33-34-5 (b), which was in effect from 1982 until its repeal in 1991, provided:

Each initial application for a new policy of motor vehicle liability insurance sold in this state after November 1, 1982, shall contain a statement in boldface type signed lay the applicant indicating that the optional coverages listed in [61]*61subsection (a) of this Code section have been explained to the applicant.

Thus, the statute established three requirements: (1) the application must contain a statement that the optional coverage has been explained to the applicant; (2) the statement must be in boldface type; and (3) the applicant must sign the statement.3 In Goddard, we defined “boldface” as “print which exhibits a face sufficiently heavy in appearance to cause it to be more conspicuous than the print which surrounds it.”4

The application in this case meets the requirements of the statute and our decision in Goddard. Specifically, it contains the following statement: “The Additional Optional Coverages Above Have Been Explained To Me.” This statement is in boldface type and is set off by itself, thus making it more conspicuous than the print above and below it. The applicant wrote her signature on the line immediately following the statement.

By signing this statement, Freeman confirmed in writing that she knew the insurance company offered optional no-fault coverage for an additional premium, the options had been explained to her, and she rejected the extra coverage. Since her insurance application satisfied the statutory requirements, she was not entitled to additional coverage. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the grant of summary judgment to Freeman.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, C. J, Carley and Thompson, JJ, who dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smalls v. Blueprint Development, Inc.
497 S.E.2d 54 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Southern Trust Insurance v. Cravey
492 S.E.2d 251 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Freeman
487 S.E.2d 713 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. Freeman
485 S.E.2d 738 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
485 S.E.2d 738, 268 Ga. 60, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1511, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-fire-casualty-co-v-freeman-ga-1997.