Summary
applying Tennessee law to case in which Tennessee resident insured under Tennessee policy was involved in accident with unknown driver
Summary of this case from Fire v. HughesOpinion
A89A0669.
DECIDED MAY 5, 1989.
Action on policy. Monroe Superior Court. Before Judge Whitmire.
James Carey, James D. Carey, for appellant.
Martin, Snow, Grant Napier, Walter E. King III, for appellee.
The appellant brought this "John Doe" action to recover uninsured motorist insurance benefits allegedly due him as the result of an automobile accident which occurred in Monroe County, Georgia, when an unknown driver forced his vehicle off the roadway without actually making contact with it. An independent eyewitness corroborated the appellant's description of how the accident occurred. The appellant is a Tennessee resident and was covered under a policy of automobile insurance issued in Tennessee by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. He caused State Farm to be served with process in the present action as his uninsured motorist carrier. The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm based on application of Tennessee law, and this appeal followed. Held:
Under the Tennessee uninsured motorist statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1201 (2) (e), there must be "actual physical contact" between the vehicles in order for the coverage to apply where the driver causing the injury is unknown. In Georgia, on the other hand, actual physical contact is not required if an eyewitness corroborates the event. OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (2). The appellant urges that this conflict should be resolved by application of Georgia law as the lex loci delecti, while State Farm argues that the trial court properly applied Tennessee law as the lex loci contractus. Based on this court's decision in Howard v. Doe, 174 Ga. App. 415 ( 330 S.E.2d 370) (1985), which is factually indistinguishable from the present case, we hold that application of Tennessee law was appropriate under the circumstances and that the trial court consequently did not err in granting State Farm's motion for summary judgment.
Judgment affirmed. Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.