Articles Posted in Car Collisions

As a Georgia accident lawyer, I understand the critical importance of evidence in establishing liability and seeking justice for victims involved in car accidents. In a car crash trial, evidence plays a pivotal role in determining the sequence of events, identifying responsible parties, and evaluating the extent of damages. In this article, I will explore the various types of evidence commonly presented in car crash trials, highlighting their significance and how they contribute to the overall strength of a case.

1. Eyewitness Testimony:

Eyewitness testimony is one of the most powerful forms of evidence in a car crash trial. Eyewitnesses provide firsthand accounts of the accident, offering crucial details regarding the events leading up to the collision, the actions of the drivers involved, and other pertinent factors. Their statements can help establish fault and shed light on any negligent or reckless behavior exhibited by either party. The credibility and reliability of eyewitness testimony are usually evaluated based on factors such as visibility, proximity to the accident, and their ability to recall accurate details.

If you are reading this blog post, then it is probably because you received a letter from the Georgia Insolvency Pool regarding your bodily injury claim as a result of a car accident or workers’ compensation accident. This blog will focus on the car accident injury claim.  Basically, the insurance company for the at-fault driver which is responsible for handling your injury claim is in bankruptcy or receivership as it no longer has enough assets (money) to pay for your injury claim.  Covered claims under the Georgia Insolvency Pool generally requires that the insured (at-fault motorist) be a resident of Georgia at the time of the car wreck when either the insured or third-party claimant (injured innocent victim) was a resident of Georgia at the time of the automobile collision.

Typically, the Georgia Insolvency Pool (“Pool”) will request an affidavit from you that discloses contact and policy information regarding any other possible automobile insurance policy that could cover your injury claim (e.g. uninsured motorist bodily injury coverage on your own car policy) from the car crash besides the fault motorist’s insurer which is now insolvent.

The reason for that is that the Georgia Insolvency Pool is trying to limit its exposure (save money) to pay you for the claim.  If you have other coverage besides the at fault motorist’s insurer, then that other coverage becomes primary (pays first) and Georgia Insolvency coverage becomes secondary (pays second).   Under O.C.G.A. 33-36-14, your own insurance coverage (if applicable and existing – typically uninsured motorist bodily injury coverage under your own auto policy) must exhaust (pay out) its limits prior to any payment of your claim by the Georgia Insolvency Pool.  Moreover, the Pool gets credit for whatever the primary insurer pays to you.  And, your uninsured motorist bodily injury (“UMBI”) carrier may be able to recover (rare) what it paid to you from the assets of the insolvent insurance company.

Governor Kemp’s order for all Georgia residents to stay at home went into effect on April 3, 2020 which effectively allows Georgia residents to get outside for exercise, shop for groceries, seek medical help and to keep going to work at jobs deemed “essential.”  Thus, the only motorists allowed on Georgia roads should be grocery shoppers, essential workers and persons seeking medical treatment.   As I look out my window from the office, I still see many motorists on Piedmont Road in Atlanta; however, daily normal traffic of approximately 35-40K+ cars on Piedmont Road has greatly reduced since enactment of the aforementioned order.

As there are motorists on the roads in Georgia, the possibly exists that some motorists may be involved in car collisions.  As a result of those car collision, drivers and passengers may be injured and require treatment.  But, where should persons as a result of car collisions treat in the Covid age?  I have heard that emergency rooms across Atlanta are accepting patients with life/death situations; whether or not injured motorists whose injuries do not rise to that level are being accepted at those hospitals is unknown.  Of course, the reality is that wait times at hospitals are increasing.

If a person injured as the result of a car wreck is unable to treat at the hospital, then there are other options for treatment including but not limited to, urgent care centers, pain management physicians, chiropractors, orthopedists and similar health care providers.  It is best to do your homework and Google or call different providers to see hours/times/availability to best care for your injuries.

Recently, in Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Rockefeller, the Court of Appeals of Georgia upheld the trial court’s ruling that declined to allow the insurance company to offset Rockefeller’s worker’s compensation recovery against the amount the company owed to him under his policy. Because the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident did not have sufficient insurance coverage to pay for Rockefeller’s damages, he sought additional compensation under his policy with Georgia Farm Bureau.  Rockefeller had four uninsured motorist (“UM”) policies totaling  $100,000 that were in effect at the time of the accident. However, Georgia Farm Bureau argued that because Rockefeller received $197,966.55 through workers compensation benefits for his injuries, and a $25,000 settlement from the other driver’s insurance company, his recovery exceeded the coverage limits of his UM policies, thus reducing Georgia Farm Bureau’s liability to Rockefeller under the UM policies to zero.

But, Rockefeller’s workers’ compensation award provided a weekly amount less than the wages he was earning at the time of the accident, so he accumulated an additional $183,022.38 in lost wages for which he was not compensated. The Court of Appeals rejected Georgia Farm Bureau’s argument, and held that the insurance company was liable up to the $100,000 combined coverage limit of Rockefeller’s four UM policies for losses he sustained that were not covered by his worker’s compensation award or his settlement with the other driver’s insurer.

The parties’ argument in this case revolved around the interpretation of OCGA § 33-7-11 which essentially provides that insurance policies may contain provision which provide for exclusions of liability of the insurer for personal injury or death for which the insured has been compensated under a workers’ compensation policy. Rockefeller’s insurance policy with Georgia Farm Bureau contained such a limitation, but the court refused to allow Georgia Farm Bureau to offset the amount owed to Rockefeller under his uninsured motorist policy by the amount Rockefeller recovered from other sources. This case provides an important precedent establishing a distinction between situations where plaintiffs would receive a duplicative recovery and where insurance companies seek to avoid the disbursement of funds owed under insurance policies simply because the policy-holder received some compensation from other sources. Thus, even where a plaintiff recovers some compensation from a source, like worker’s compensation, a non-duplication provision does not bar the insured from recovering from his insurer for uncompensated losses. While it is understandable that insurance companies would want to include non-duplication provisions in policies with their insureds, this ruling makes clear that insurance companies will not be let off the hook simply because their insureds have been partially compensated by alternative means. This holding reaffirms the precedent in Marby v. State Farm Automotive Insurance Corporation, which states that insurance companies remain liable up to the amount set forth in the policy limits so long as the plaintiff remains uncompensated for at least a portion of their damages, including future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and past and future pain and suffering.

Allstate Insurance recently completed an analysis of the best drivers in America by reviewing the frequency of property damage caused by drivers insured by Allstate from 2013-2014.  The analysis and conclusions were published in a report that looks at the 200 biggest cities (as identified by U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Estimates) in the United States.  The purpose of the study was to contribute to the ongoing discussion of driving safely and attentively behind the wheel – particularly, as to the popular driving season in the summer.  For our purposes, the study concluded that Atlanta had some of the worst drivers in the country and that 183 of the biggest cities in the United States had safer drivers than us.  FYI, Boston was the worst with a rank of 200 – I think the haphazard road and highway configuration is to blame…. Brownsville, Texas had the safest drivers…

Of course, Allstate has a vested interest in the results of the study as Allstate’s general aim is to take in insurance premiums from customers and minimize payouts to persons injured and property damaged by Allstate insured drivers.  As an interesting side note, I read that Allstate recently requested (from Georgia Insurance Commissioner – aka rubber stamp) and received a 25% increase in the premiums it charges in the State of Georgia.  And, sure enough, I checked the price of my renewal of office insurance policy and it increased exactly by 25%.

Some other general statistics gleaned from the study reflect that the average driver will be involved in a collision (there are no accidents – just negligence of behalf of the motorist) at least once every 10 years and that distracted driving causes 26% of motor vehicle collisions. Allstate polled more than 4,500 drivers and published some interesting statistics on distracted driving:  37% of motorists talk on the phone while driving; 39% of motorists say texting is largest contributor of distracting driving; 34.3% of motorists say their ability to talk on the cellphone or text while driving is poor (while less than 1% say it is excellent); 60.4% say texting and distracted driving is about as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and 35.7% of the motorists know someone who has been involved in a car crash caused by distracted drivers. For more information in a well-written blog on distracted driving, please click here, here, here and finally here.