Ignorance of UM Coverage for Pedestrian Hit by Car is Inexcusable
Post 5107
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gyX8BgrF, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPejDHQV and at https://lnkd.in/gkPqNw4Y and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Dennis Malcolm Patterson was struck by an automobile while crossing the street, he sued the driver who hit him and sought uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage from his own insurer, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”). USAA filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Patterson failed to comply with the policy provision requiring prompt notification. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and Patterson appealed.
In Patterson v. United Services Automobile Association, No. A25A0259, Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fifth Division (June 20, 2025) the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
Key Points:
Trial Court’s Decision:
It treated the court’s order as a denial of summary judgment
Incident Details:
Patterson was injured on May 17, 2019, when a car driven by Abhay Kumar Singh ran a stop sign and hit him. Patterson hired an attorney on February 17, 2021, and forwarded the police report to a USAA adjuster on March 5, 2021 .
USAA’s Denial:
USAA denied coverage, arguing that Patterson failed to comply with the policy’s provisions requiring prompt notice .
Policy Provisions:
The policy required insureds to notify the insurer promptly of how, when, and where an accident or loss happened. Patterson’s 21-month delay in notifying USAA was deemed a failure to provide prompt notice .
Court’s Conclusion:
The Court of Appeals found Patterson’s delay unreasonable as a matter of law and affirmed the trial court’s order .
DISCUSSION
The trial court found that the policy provision requiring insureds to notify the insurer “promptly of how, when, and where an accident or loss happened” was a condition precedent to coverage. Patterson’s 21-month delay in notifying USAA meant that he failed “as a matter of law” to provide prompt notice.
The trial court also determined that Patterson’s ignorance of the fact that a pedestrian can benefit from his own uninsured motorist coverage is not an excuse that creates a jury issue.
A notice provision expressly made a condition precedent to coverage is valid and must be complied with. Where an insured has not demonstrated justification for failure to give notice according to the terms of the policy, then the insurer is not obligated to provide either a defense or coverage.
An insured may be able to present justification for delay in giving notice, and whether that justification was sufficient is generally a fact-based inquiry for a jury.
Georgia law is replete with cases finding that an insured’s reasons for delay are unreasonable as a matter of law. Patterson’s appeal falls into this category. Its courts have held that mere ignorance of coverage, without other justification for delay, presents no jury question.
If an insured does not read or otherwise make himself aware of the policy provisions, the Court of Appeals concluded that any ambiguity in the unread policy cannot have been a reason for his delay in providing prompt notification. It is well settled that the general rule is that an insured has an obligation to read and examine his insurance policy to determine the nature of the coverage therein.
The Court of Appeals explained that there was no evidence – indeed, not even an assertion – that Patterson’s ignorance of the terms of the insurance policy was due to any fraud or overreaching on the part of the insurer or its agents. The law requires more than just ignorance, or even misplaced confidence, to avoid the terms of a valid contract.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Patterson’s delay unreasonable as a matter of law. The trial court’s order properly dismissed his claim.
ZALMA OPINION
Since law in most states required insurance companies to write their insurance policies in “easy to read language” there is no way to claim the policy was difficult or impossible to read. States like Georgia require an insured to read the policy and find that if the insured is ignorant of the conditions of the policy is not an excuse for failing to comply with conditions precedent. A 21 month delay in giving notice defeats coverage and is unreasonable as a matter of law.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
