What is “Traditional”; Reducing Limits on Uninsured Motorist Insurance in Georgia

Posted in Car Accident on October 14, 2025

Reducing Uninsured Motorist Limits in Georgia; How is that “traditional”?

Statutory Requirements (O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11)

  • Mandatory offer (unless rejected in writing)
    Under § 33-7-11(a)(1), no automobile liability policy in Georgia may be issued or delivered unless it “contains an endorsement or provisions undertaking to pay the insured damages … from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle,” unless “the insured rejects the coverage in writing.” Justia+1
    In short: UM coverage is the default; the insured must opt out (or select a variant) by a written instrument.

  • Choice of forms / limits
    The statute contemplates that the insured may (in writing) reject the coverage entirely or select UM limits less than the liability limits. (But if no such affirmative selection is proven, UM coverage equal to liability limits is the default. )

  • “Added-on” vs. “reduced-by” triggers
    The statute (and relevant insurer rules) permit the insured, by appropriate election, to choose whether UM coverage is “added on” to the tortfeasor’s liability (i.e., not reduced by other recoveries) or reduced by amounts paid by the tortfeasor. The insurer must offer those alternatives.

  • Rule about disclosure by regulation
    Under the Georgia Administrative Code, Rule 120-2-28, insurers must include in the notice to the insured, for new business or renewal, specific required language describing UM coverage and the options. (That regulation gives guidance as to how the insurer must present the choices). Georgia Rules and Regulations

Judicial Interpretation — What Makes a Form Adequate?

Because the statute is not hyper-specific as to the exact wording or layout, Georgia courts (and insurers) often litigate whether a particular “selection / rejection” document or disclosure is legally sufficient. Below are the key principles courts tend to apply.

  1. Writing must be understandable and informative
    The insured must be able to understand “what is being waived or selected” and the practical consequences. A form that is confusing, ambiguous, or fails to explain differences may be vulnerable. Some insurer “supplemental application” forms include brief summaries or sample calculations (e.g. “added-on vs. reduced-by”) to help the insured understand.

  2. Signed (or equivalent) record
    The insured’s acceptance (or rejection) must be evidenced by writing. That usually means a signed form, but courts have accepted “written proposals” or emails that clearly express a rejection, depending on context and whether the insured intended to reject.

    • For example, in Cline v. Allstate, the Georgia Court of Appeals recognized that the insured had completed a coverage selection/rejection form, checked boxes, and signed forms.

    • In a more modern context, an insurer defeated a claim that an electronic signature was invalid when it showed the insured used an insurer portal and executed a replacement selection document electronically.

  3. Burden on insurer to prove adequacy
    If a dispute arises over whether the insured validly rejected or selected a lesser UM option, the insurer must prove (by clear evidence) that the insured’s writing was valid and that the insured had sufficient notice. The insured is not presumed to have validly rejected coverage simply because a form was sent.

  4. Default assumption / “ambiguity” rule
    If the insurer fails to show an adequate election, the default is that UM coverage is equal to the liability limits. That is, the insurer cannot benefit from a deficient form or ambiguity.

    • In Cline, the Court affirmed that, although the insured had earlier signed a form selecting lower coverage, the insurer also sent a disclosure in 2008 explaining the new “added-on” default and the insured did not reject it — the insurer’s evidence supported the conclusion that the insured’s original rejected form remained valid.

    • More recently, in Jones v. Georgia Farm Bureau (2023), the Court of Appeals held that an insured’s choice to carry UM less than liability limits need not itself be signed in a document that both states “I choose lower limits” and specifies the lower amount. Rather, the insurer must show the insured affirmatively made the selection; if it cannot, the default (equal to liability limits) applies.

  5. Renewal / continuing policies
    Many UM disputes involve whether the insured’s choice in the original policy (or in renewals) carried forward. An insurer should present clear affirmation (or repeated offer and acceptance) at renewal. Failing to re-offer or re-obtain a clear election can invite a claim that the insured did not validly reject or select a lesser option for the renewal period.

  6. “Effective notice” principles
    Even beyond the literal writing requirement, courts may look to whether the insured had effective notice of the alternatives. If the insurer buries the UM rejection option in fine print or uses misleading wording, the form’s sufficiency can be challenged.

Tactical Observations & Risks in Litigation

  • It is common in UM litigation to demand production of the original selection / rejection forms (with metadata, timestamps, electronic signature audit trails) to assess whether the writing was contemporaneous, clear, and made by the insured.

  • Insurers often rely on standard “check-the-box” UM rejection forms; those must be audited carefully. If the insured’s initials or signature blocks are omitted, inconsistent, or obscure, the insurer’s proof may be deficient.

  • In modern practice, the use of electronic or e-signature rejection forms increases the risk of challenges, particularly if audit logs cannot confirm who, when, and how the rejection was made. The Hankins summary judgment case is an example of such a dispute over an electronic signature.

  • In drafting or auditing UM selection forms, it’s safe practice to include:

    1. A clear, plain-language explanation of each option (e.g. “added-on,” “reduced-by,” reject entirely).

    2. The default rule (i.e. absent selection, UM equals liability limits).

    3. Consequences (e.g. cost difference, reduction of recovery, premium impact).

    4. A space for insured initials or signature next to each option.

    5. Date and cross-reference to the policy and declarations.

    6. For renewals, a notice that previously selected options will continue unless changed.

  • If an insurer cannot show an adequate written rejection, it may be forced to pay UM coverage at liability limits, which can change exposure significantly.