From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Universal Security Insurance Company v. Lowery

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 9, 1987
359 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. 1987)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

rejecting contention that corroboration required under statute is corroboration by a disinterested third party where statute refers only to "eyewitness"

Summary of this case from Dunn v. Doe
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

44505.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 9, 1987.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 182 Ga. App. 125.

Lane, O'Brien Coburn, Stanley A. Coburn, Stephen J. Caswell, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Hoffspiegel, D. Glenn Brock, for appellee.

WELTNER, Justice.

We granted certiorari in Universal Security Ins. Co. v. Lowery, 182 Ga. App. 125 ( 354 S.E.2d 840) (1987), in order to consider the adequacy of corroboration required by OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (2). The facts are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

While the evidence here may be subject to credibility concerns, it is nonetheless sufficient. The statutory requirement in cases where there is no physical contact is "description by the claimant of how the occurrence occurred corroborated by an eyewitness to the occurrence other than the claimant." If the General Assembly had intended to require corroboration by a disinterested third party, it could have so specified.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 9, 1987.

Summaries of

Universal Security Insurance Company v. Lowery

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 9, 1987
359 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. 1987)

rejecting contention that corroboration required under statute is corroboration by a disinterested third party where statute refers only to "eyewitness"

Summary of this case from Dunn v. Doe

In Lowery, the Supreme Court held that the corroborating eyewitness testimony required to satisfy the statute may be provided by an injured passenger who also has a claim against the uninsured motorist insurance carrier.

Summary of this case from American Ambassador Casualty Company v. Cash

In Universal Security Ins. Co. v. Lowery, 257 Ga. 363 (359 S.E.2d 898), our Supreme Court affirmed a literal reading of OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (2) that only an eyewitness can corroborate the claimant's description of the occurrence.

Summary of this case from Scott v. Allstate Insurance Company

In Universal Security Ins. Co. v. Lowery, 257 Ga. 363 (359 S.E.2d 898) (1987), the Supreme Court insisted on a narrow interpretation of OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (2), saying that "[i]f the General Assembly had intended [something other than the literal meaning of the words used in the statute], it could have so specified."

Summary of this case from Hoffman v. Doe
Case details for

Universal Security Insurance Company v. Lowery

Case Details

Full title:UNIVERSAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. LOWERY

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Sep 9, 1987

Citations

359 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. 1987)
359 S.E.2d 898

Citing Cases

Lovelady v. Alfa Mutual Insurance

So the requirement for eyewitness testimony is met. The case turns on a construction of the statutory…

Bone v. State Farm Mutual Insurance

The legislative intent is to eliminate fraudulent claims of negligent drivers. Universal Security Ins. Co. v.…

14 Citing Cases