Emond v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
175 Ga. App. 548, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2158, 333 S.E.2d 656 (1985)
Rule of Law:
An insurer may reallocate payments made under a mistake of law to reflect policy terms and fulfill coverage obligations, provided the reallocation does not deprive the insured of entitled benefits. Policy limitations on medical expense coverage are enforceable unless they are unconscionable or against public policy, such as those forcing a 'gruesome choice'.
Facts:
- In 1979, appellant-plaintiff was injured in an automobile collision.
- Appellant was insured by appellee-defendant, holding a policy with basic PIP coverage and the right to demand $50,000 optional PIP coverage upon tender of premium.
- Appellant's policy also included $5,000 medical payment coverage for expenses incurred within one year of the accident, which was excess over any Personal Injury Protection benefits.
- Before the Jones and Flewellen decisions clarified the no-fault law, appellant initially received $5,000 in basic PIP benefits and then the full $5,000 in excess medical payment benefits.
- Subsequent to the Flewellen decision, appellant paid a premium for $50,000 optional PIP coverage, which appellee agreed appellant was entitled to.
- Appellee, having previously paid $10,000 (basic PIP plus excess medical payment), then paid an additional $40,000, bringing its total payments to $50,000.
- Appellant subsequently submitted a claim for additional medical expenses, all of which were incurred more than one year after the collision.
- Appellee refused to pay this latest claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant instituted a civil action against appellee, asserting she had been paid only $45,000 in PIP benefits and was entitled to an additional $5,000.
- Appellee answered, asserting that appellant had been paid all benefits available under the terms of the applicable policy.
- Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, concluding that the original $5,000 medical payment should be reallocated to optional PIP, that $50,000 in PIP benefits had already been exhausted, and that appellant was not entitled to additional benefits under excess medical payment coverage due to the one-year limitation.
- The trial court denied appellant's motion for summary judgment.
- Appellant appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to appellee and the denial of partial summary judgment for herself.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an insurance company entitled to reallocate an initial medical payment benefit, made under a mistake of law, to an insured's optional Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage to meet its full obligations, and are time limitations on medical payment coverage enforceable when the expenses are incurred outside that period?
Opinions:
Majority - Carley, Judge
Yes, an insurance company is entitled to reallocate an initial medical payment benefit made under a mistake of law, and time limitations on medical payment coverage are enforceable when expenses are incurred outside that period. The court affirmed the trial court's decision. Regarding reallocation, the court found that the $5,000 payment for excess medical benefits, made prior to the Jones and Flewellen decisions, constituted a 'mistake of law' rather than mere 'ignorance of the law' under OCGA § 13-1-13. The interpretation of the no-fault law was unclear among the bench, bar, and insurers at the time. Therefore, appellee was not a 'volunteer' in making the payment and was entitled to reallocate it towards appellant's optional PIP coverage, especially since appellant initiated enforcement of the policy terms by invoking Jones and Flewellen and was not deprived of any benefits she would otherwise be entitled to. The reallocation merely redesignated the payment to conform with the contract terms. Regarding the one-year limitation on medical payment coverage, the court held that this provision was not unconscionable or against public policy. The policy clearly defined the coverage. This limitation was distinguished from the 'gruesome choice' scenario presented in Strickland v. Gulf Life Ins. Co. where an insured was forced to make a difficult decision (e.g., amputate a limb for benefits). In the instant case, coverage was afforded, with limitations on eligibility, and it did not involve such an unconscionable choice.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarification on the application of OCGA § 13-1-13 regarding payments made under 'mistake of law' versus 'ignorance of law' in the insurance context, particularly when legal interpretations evolve. It establishes that insurers may reallocate such payments to fulfill their ultimate policy obligations without being deemed a 'volunteer,' provided the insured is not unjustly deprived of benefits. Furthermore, the decision reinforces the enforceability of clear time-based policy limitations on coverage, distinguishing them from unconscionable clauses that compel an insured to make ethically difficult choices, thereby shaping how courts will evaluate policy restrictions in future cases.
