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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
