McFADDEN, P. J., BRANCH and BETHEL, JJ.
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company ("Georgia Farm
Bureau") appeals from the trial court's denial of
its motion for summary judgment and the court's grant of
partial summary judgment in favor of Jerry Rockefeller.
Georgia Farm Bureau argues that the trial court misapplied
OCGA § 33-7-11 (i) with regard to the limitation of
liability provision in the uninsured motorist
("UM") insurance policies that Rockefeller holds
with Georgia Farm Bureau. However, because we agree with the
trial court's interpretation of the statute and its
application to the facts of this case, we affirm.
judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. OCGA § 9-11-56(c). We review a trial court's
decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo and
construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant. Home Builders Ass'n of Savannah, Inc. v.
Chatham Cty., 276 Ga. 243, 245 (1) (577 S.E.2d 564)
material facts of this case are undisputed. Rockefeller was
involved in a two-car auto accident from which he sustained
injuries. He filed suit against the driver of the other
vehicle. Georgia Farm Bureau, the insurer who provided UM
insurance coverage to Rockefeller, was not named in the suit
but was served with a copy of Rockefeller's complaint
pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11 (d) after Rockefeller
determined that the other driver was likely
other driver's insurer paid $25, 000 to Rockefeller in
settlement of his claim against the driver. Additionally,
because Rockefeller was working at the time of the accident,
he received workers' compensation benefits totaling $197,
966.55 for his injuries. However, because his ongoing
workers' compensation award provided a weekly amount that
was less than the wages he was earning at the time of the
accident, he accumulated $183, 022.38 in lost wages for which
he was not compensated. Rockefeller did not receive any
compensation for past and future pain and suffering or future
medical expenses either through his workers' compensation
award or through his settlement with the other
the other driver did not have sufficient insurance coverage
to pay for Rockefeller's remaining damages, Rockefeller
sought additional compensation under four UM policies he held
with Georgia Farm Bureau that were in effect at the time of
the accident. Each policy provided up to $25, 000 in UM
benefits for a combined policy limit of $100, 000. Each of
the UM policies contained a "limit of liability"
clause which provided, in relevant part, that
The limit of liability . . . for this coverage is our maximum
limit of liability for all damages resulting from any one
accident. . . . The limit of liability shall be reduced by
all sums . . . [p]aid or payable because of . . . bodily
injury under any . . . Worker's Compensation law . . .
basis of this provision, Georgia Farm Bureau filed a motion
for summary judgment on Rockefeller's claims, arguing
that because the amount of workers' compensation benefits
Rockefeller received exceeded the combined coverage limits of
his UM policies, Georgia Farm Bureau's liability to
Rockefeller under the UM policies was reduced to zero.
Rockefeller, in turn, filed his own motion for partial
summary judgment, arguing that his UM policies should cover
up to $100, 000 of his uncompensated damages, including lost
wages, damages for past and future pain and suffering, and
future medical expenses that were not covered by his
settlement with the other driver's insurer or his
workers' compensation award. Following a hearing, the
trial court denied Georgia Farm Bureau's motion for
summary judgment and granted Rockefeller's motion for
partial summary judgment. This appeal followed.
§ 33-7-11 (i) provides, in part, that
In addition to any offsets or reductions contained in the
provisions of division (b)(1)(D)(ii) of [OCGA §
33-7-11], an endorsement or the provisions of the policy
providing [UM coverage] . . . may contain provisions which
exclude any liability of the insurer for personal or bodily
injury or death for which the insured has been . . .
compensated pursuant to workers' compensation laws.
Farm Bureau argues that this statute and the limit of
liability provision in the UM policies allow it to offset the
entirety of Rockefeller's workers' compensation
award-$197, 966.55-against its combined liability of $100,
000 under Rockefeller's four UM policies, thus reducing
Georgia Farm Bureau's liability to zero. We disagree with
that reading of the statute and agree with the trial court
that this provision of the UM statute does not permit the
dollar-for-dollar reduction in the limits of
Rockefeller's policies that Georgia Farm Bureau argues
for in this case. Rather, Georgia Farm Bureau is liable up to
the $100, 000 combined coverage limit of Rockefeller's
four UM policies for losses he sustained in the accident that
were not covered by his workers' compensation award or
his settlement with the other driver's insurer.
text of OCGA § 33-7-11 (i) only permits the exclusion of
a UM insurer's liability for damages "for which the
insured has been . . . compensated." In this case, if
Rockefeller's total damages were equal to the combined
amount of his workers' compensation award and the
settlement he received from the other driver's insurer,
Georgia Farm Bureau would have no liability because
Rockefeller would have been fully compensated for all damages
he sustained. But that is not the case before us.
Rockefeller made claims against his UM policy for additional
damages that were not covered by his workers'
compensation award and his settlement with the other
driver's insurer, including additional lost wages of
$183, 022.38 and an unspecified amount of damages for past
and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses
resulting from the accident. Georgia Farm Bureau does not
suggest that Rockefeller ...