concluding that the approximate six-month delay in giving notice to the insurer was not unreasonable as a matter of law since the insured was unaware that coverage for the accident existed under the policy
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the approximate six-month delay in giving notice to the insurer was not unreasonable as a matter of law since the insured was unaware that coverage for the accident existed under the policy
- holding that notice provided by the insured’s attorney was adequate
- where there is lack of knowledge of the insured as to coverage
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing, State Farm cites the recent decision of this court in Atlanta Intl. Prop. v. Georgia Underwriting Assn., 149 Ga. App. 701 (1979), as authority requiring a reversal of the trial court’s denial of State Farm’s motion for summary judgment. We do not agree. In Atlanta Inti. Prop., the issue concerning notice dealt with the viability of the insured’s contention that there was an ambiguity in the policy which should be construed against the insurer so as to create a waiver or estoppel. This court found no ambiguity and thus determined that there was neither waiver nor estoppel. Furthermore, and most significantly, the notice requirement in the policy involved in Atlanta Intl. Prop. was that" 'the insured shall give immediate written notice to this Company of any loss.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, State Farm’s policy required notice to be given "as soon as practicable.” Accordingly, we adhere to our determination of the existence of a jury issue with regard to compliance with the policy requirements.
Motion for rehearing denied.