TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wilkinson v. Vigilant Insurance Company

WILKINSON v. VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY Et Al.

Wilkinson v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 224 S.E.2d 167 (Ga. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 24, 1976
Docket
No. 30574
Judges
Nichols
Citations
224 S.E.2d 167236 Ga. 4561976 Ga. LEXIS 900

Opinion — Nichols

Nichols, Chief Justice.

The appellant in this case was involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist. The appellant filed suit against Craft, the uninsured, and served her own insurance carrier, Vigilant Insurance Company. While the suit was pending, Craft filed a bankruptcy petition in which he scheduled the pending tort claim. He was subsequently discharged by the referee in bankruptcy. The appellant made no appearance in the bankruptcy court. Craft filed a motion to dismiss the suit as to him because of the bankruptcy. Vigilant Insurance Company then filed a motion for summary judgment setting up the uninsured’s discharge in bankruptcy as a bar to legal adjudication of liability of the uninsured, and therefore it had no liability to its insured. The trial court granted Vigilant’s motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Wilkinson v. Craft, 135 Ga. App. 738 ( 219 SE2d 4 ) (1975). Certiorari was granted to review this ruling.

1. The Court of Appeals has interpreted that part of Code Ann. § 56-407.1(a), providing that liability insurance policies shall contain "provisions undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle,” to mean that the injured party must reduce his claim to a judgment in order to establish the amount he is legally entitled to recover. There is no fault in this logic, but to allow an insurer to escape liability under its contract because of the uninsured’s bankruptcy would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Act. (It is the liability to the insured under the contract of insurance that is to be adjudicated whether the uninsured motorist be known or unknown.) This is evidenced by the allowance of a John Doe action in any case of an unknown motorist and also as provided in subsection (d) of Code Ann. § 56-407.1, that: "In cases where the owner or operator of any vehicle causing injury or damages be known, and either or both be named as defendants in any action for such injury or damages, a *457 copy of such action and all pleadings thereto shall be served as prescribed by lawupon the insurance company.. Thus, it is seen that the insurance company is the real party in interest and not the uninsured motorist.

Argued January 15, 1976 Decided February 24, 1976 Rehearing denied March 11, 1976.

Kirby G. Bailey, for appellant.

J. Kenneth Moorman, Harry J. Beecham, for appellees.

2. It was held in Miller v. Collins, 328 Mo. 313 ( 40 SW2d 1062 ), that section 16 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA § 34), applies to liability insurance carriers. That section provides: "The liability of a person who is a co-debtor with, or guarantor or in any manner a surety for, a bankrupt shall not be altered by the discharge of such bankrupt.” In Miller, supra, it was held (p. 319): "It is unnecessary to determine specifically that the insurer is a co-debtor, or a guarantor, or in any manner a surety for the assured, but it is clear that the insurer falls within one of these classifications. . . Consequently, the liability of the [insurer] is not altered by the discharge of the bankrupt.”

Since no liability can attach to the known uninsured, the action should have been allowed to proceed as though it were a John Doe action and the insured can establish "all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages,” caused by the uninsured motorist. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurance company.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1976: 21977: 21979: 11984: 21985: 11986: 11988: 11989: 21992: 11993: 11994: 21995: 21997: 11999: 12001: 22004: 32015: 12017: 12019: 12025: 119762026peak 2004 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Noble430 S.E.2d 804 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) · Dissent
  2. Watkins v. United States462 F. Supp. 980 (S.D. Ga. 1977)
  3. Tinsley v. Worldwide Insurance442 S.E.2d 877 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)
  4. Redding v. Walker485 S.E.2d 252 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)
  5. In re Jet Florida Systems, Inc.883 F.2d 970 (11th Cir. 1989)
  6. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Harris427 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)

Most recent

  1. AP Framing, Inc.No. 20-68856 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 25, 2025)
  2. v. Shelter Mutual Insurance2019 COA 88
  3. Easterling v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.251 So. 3d 767 (Ala. 2017)
  4. Fcci Insurance Company. v. McLendon Enterprises, Inc.772 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. 2015)
  5. Soley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance600 S.E.2d 707 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)
  6. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Williams597 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Miller v. Collins, 40 S.W.2d 1062 (Mo. 1931) 22
Wilkinson v. Craft, 219 S.E.2d 4 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list