Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 40-9-102 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 40 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

Section 9. Reporting Accidents; Giving Proof of Financial Responsibility, 40-9-1 through 40-9-103.

ARTICLE 5 ASSIGNED RISK PLANS, "SPOT" INSURANCE, AND COOPERATION BY INSURED

40-9-102. Insurance for person renting U-drive-it vehicle.

Any person who rents motor vehicles from a U-drive-it owner is required to provide his own insurance, and insurance companies authorized to issue automobile policies in this state shall be required by the Commissioner of Insurance to provide "spot" insurance, which shall be purchased by such person before the U-drive-it owner shall be authorized to turn a motor vehicle over to such person. If a U-drive-it owner turns over any motor vehicle to any person without first ascertaining that such "spot" insurance has been obtained, the U-drive-it owner shall not, as to that particular rental transaction, be exempted from the provisions of this chapter as provided in Code Section 40-9-4.

(Ga. L. 1951, p. 565, § 23; Ga. L. 1963, p. 593, § 10; Code 1933, § 68C-604, enacted by Ga. L. 1977, p. 1014, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 97, § 40.)

Law reviews.

- For annual survey article discussing developments in insurance law, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 313 (1999).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Purpose of section.

- Car rental agency's failure to verify a renting driver was insured did not constitute negligence per se so as to make the agency liable in an action against the agency by occupants of a vehicle who were injured in a collision involving a vehicle rented from the agency. O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102 was not designed to prevent the collision which caused the plaintiffs' injuries, but, rather, the statute's purpose is to assure that such tortfeasors are not uninsured. Rabinovitz v. Accent Rent-A-Car, Inc., 213 Ga. App. 786, 446 S.E.2d 244 (1994); Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Hamilton, 216 Ga. App. 659, 455 S.E.2d 366 (1995).

O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102 requires that a person who rents from a U-drive-it owner must provide insurance for the vehicle either through a vehicle insurance policy the renter already holds for the renter's own vehicle that covers the renter while driving another car or by purchasing at the time of rental an insurance policy that covers the specific rental vehicle. Atlanta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Jackson, 204 Ga. App. 448, 419 S.E.2d 489, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 921, 419 S.E.2d 489 (1992).

Co-operators not subject to statute.

- Clear language of O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102 addresses itself to the renter of the vehicle, not the operator, authorized or not, inasmuch as the relationship with the rental agency is a matter of contract; thus, an authorized co-operator of a vehicle, who is not deemed a co-renter by the contract, is not subject to the statute. A. Atlanta Autosave, Inc. v. Generali - U.S. Branch, 270 Ga. 757, 514 S.E.2d 651 (1999).

Liability insurance for injury to third parties.

- Language in an automobile rental agreement stating that the lessor "furnishes no insurance whatsoever to the renter" did not exempt the lessor from providing liability insurance for injury to third parties. Jones v. Wortham, 201 Ga. App. 668, 411 S.E.2d 716, cert. denied, 201 Ga. App. 904, 411 S.E.2d 716 (1991).

O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102, which provides that lessees from U-drive-it agencies furnish their own insurance, does not completely exempt the agencies from their duty to procure liability insurance as owners of vehicles pursuant to the insurance law. Jones v. Wortham, 201 Ga. App. 668, 411 S.E.2d 716, cert. denied, 201 Ga. App. 904, 411 S.E.2d 716 (1991).

Car rental company was properly granted summary judgment in a suit by the children and estate of a decedent who was injured and died as a result of a collision with a rented vehicle as the company's violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102 by failing to require the lessee of the vehicle to have "spot" liability insurance was not the proximate cause of the collision which caused the decedent's injuries and death, and, therefore, the company, which had the company's own liability insurance covering the vehicle, was not personally liable for the decedent's injuries and death. Scott v. Joe Thomson Auto Rental & Leasing, Inc., 257 Ga. App. 453, 571 S.E.2d 475 (2002).

Liability when driver not party to contract.

- Driver of rented automobile, who was listed as an additional driver but not as an additional renter and who did not sign or cosign the rental agreement, was not a party to the agreement; therefore, the driver's insurance provider was not liable for costs arising out of an accident. A. Atlanta AutoSave, Inc. v. Generali - U.S. Branch, 230 Ga. App. 887, 498 S.E.2d 278 (1998).

Operator's insurance policy deemed primary.

- Operator's insurance was primary and the owner's insurance afforded excess coverage, if any, in the case of a rental car, even though the operator's policy contained an "excess insurance" clause which stated that any liability insurance provided by the company for a vehicle not owned by the insured should be excess of any other collectible insurance. Jones v. Wortham, 201 Ga. App. 668, 411 S.E.2d 716, cert. denied, 201 Ga. App. 904, 411 S.E.2d 716 (1991).

Under O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102, U-drive-it car rental companies are not exempt from the companies' duty under O.C.G.A. § 33-34-4 to insure cars the companies own, but the companies enjoy special treatment in terms of priority of coverage on cars rented to the public, and the renter's liability insurance coverage provided primary liability coverage for loss caused by a driver of a rental car. Jordan v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, 252 Ga. App. 117, 555 S.E.2d 734 (2001).

Company's employee who rented the vehicle from the vehicle owner was insured under the insurance policy that the vehicle owner had with the insurer on which the vehicle owner was listed as an additional insured, and, thus, under Georgia statutory law, the renter's insurance provided the primary insurance coverage and the vehicle owner provided the secondary coverage after the company's employee injured the victim in a collision unless it was shown that the parties contracted to reverse the order of priority; since no such contract was shown, the insurer's coverage was the primary insurance coverage. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. General Car & Truck Leasing Sys., 258 Ga. App. 733, 574 S.E.2d 914 (2002).

Lessee's insurance primary when lessor uninsured.

- When automobile lessee's insurance had been canceled at the time the lessee rented the automobile, the lessor's insurance became primary insurance for purposes of accident coverage, notwithstanding facts that lessor's manager thought the manager had verified that lessee did have insurance, and that lessee was not the driver of the automobile at the time of the accident. A. Atlanta AutoSave, Inc. v. Generali - U.S. Branch, 230 Ga. App. 887, 498 S.E.2d 278 (1998).

Rental agency not required to offer insurance.

- O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102 does not require the U-drive-it owner to offer insurance at the time of rental if the renter already has insurance to cover the rental vehicle. The notations on the face of the rental contract at issue demonstrate that the car rental agency ascertained that the renter had insurance coverage before renting the car to the renter, therefore, a car rental agency was not required to offer insurance to a renter or to require renter to purchase insurance to be eligible for the exemption afforded by O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102. Atlanta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Jackson, 204 Ga. App. 448, 419 S.E.2d 489, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 921, 419 S.E.2d 489 (1992).

Primary coverage provided by rental company.

- When a rental company incorporated the company's own liability coverage as part of the company's rental agreement and failed to determine whether the renter maintained the renter's own liability coverage, the company's coverage had priority over the renter's policy. Ryan v. Boyd, 911 F. Supp. 524 (M.D. Ga. 1996).

Renter's insurance not primary in all instances.

- O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102 does not mean that a renter and U-drive-it owner cannot, under any circumstances, contract between themselves for the owner's insurance to be primary. General Car & Truck Leasing Sys. v. Woodruff, 214 Ga. App. 200, 447 S.E.2d 97 (1994).

Lack of coverage by renter.

- Car rental agency looses the statutory exemption provided by the statute when it is later determined that the renter did not have insurance coverage. A. Atlanta Autosave, Inc. v. Generali - U.S. Branch, 270 Ga. 757, 514 S.E.2d 651 (1999).

Application to dealers who loan cars to customers.

- Unambiguous provisions of a used vehicle dealer's insurance policy provided that the dealer's customer, who had borrowed a car while the customer's car was repaired, was an insured under the policy but was only insured up to the compulsory legal limits of O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11. Because the car was not rented, the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102 did not apply. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Fulcher, 306 Ga. App. 109, 701 S.E.2d 547 (2010).

Cited in Wausau Ins. Cos. v. Lightnin' Truck Rental, Inc., 194 Ga. App. 819, 392 S.E.2d 32 (1990).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobile Insurance, §§ 22, 24.

ALR.

- State regulation of motor vehicle rental ("you-drive") business, 60 A.L.R.4th 784.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 40-9-102

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

A. Atlanta Autosave, Inc. v. Generali - U. S. Branch, 514 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 19, 1999 | 270 Ga. 757, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1127

...ority of insurance coverage for a rental vehicle involved in a collision. We affirm because the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the car rental agency, AutoSave, could not avail itself of the exemption provided a U-drive-it owner under OCGA § 40-9-102, [1] rendering its insurance for the rental car primary for coverage of the collision....
...The trial court granted Generali's motion and denied Williams' motion, effectively declaring AutoSave's coverage primary. [2] The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Generali, concluding that despite AutoSave's attempted verification of coverage, AutoSave's insurance must become primary under OCGA § 40-9-102. It found undisputedly that Cabey did not have insurance at the time of the rental, and that Roberts was not a party to the rental agreement. 1. The clear language of OCGA § 40-9-102 addresses itself to the renter of the vehicle, not the operator, authorized or not, inasmuch as the relationship with the rental agency is a matter of contract....
...OCGA § 13-2-2(1); American Cyanamid Co. v. Ring, 248 Ga. 673, 674, 286 S.E.2d 1 (1982). The Court of Appeals correctly determined that driver Roberts was not a renter or co-renter under the agreement, and therefore not subject to the provisions of OCGA § 40-9-102. Compare Jones v. Wortham, 201 Ga.App. 668, 411 S.E.2d 716 (1991), in which the driver was also the lessee of the rental vehicle. 2. OCGA § 40-9-102 imposes upon the car rental agency the duty to verify that the renter has insurance for the rental, and if not, mandates the purchase of "spot" liability insurance prior to furnishing the vehicle....
...nce coverage for the rental vehicle from the rental agency. Atlanta Rent-A-Car v. Jackson, 204 Ga.App. 448, 419 S.E.2d 489 (1992). The Court of Appeals determined the existence of genuine issues of material fact as to AutoSave's compliance with OCGA § 40-9-102....
...But accepting for the sake of argument that AutoSave did all that it could or all that was reasonable to verify coverage before turning over the rental vehicle, the question is whether the car rental agency loses the statutory exemption provided by OCGA § 40-9-102 when it is later determined that the renter did not have insurance coverage. The answer to such question must be yes. This is so because of the clear legislative purpose behind OCGA § 40-9-102 and because of the public policy of this state. OCGA § 40-9-102 is plainly remedial....
...rresponsible renter of a U-drive-it vehicle. It does not do this by attempting to prevent tortious acts by the renter; it does not address such a problem, but rather assures that there is insurance coverage for the rental. That is the object of OCGA § 40-9-102....
...ding." Stepho v. Allstate Ins. Co., 259 Ga. 475, 476(1), 383 S.E.2d 887 (1989); GEICO v. Dickey, 255 Ga. 661, 663, 340 S.E.2d 595 (1986). Consequently, this Court must focus not on a perceived statutory entitlement for car rental agencies under OCGA § 40-9-102 but rather on fulfillment of the statute's goal....
...rimary coverage when the renter is uninsured, even if the lack of insurance is discovered post-collision, results in no unfairness to the agency. It is part of the cost of doing business. What is more, by providing the possibility of exemption, OCGA § 40-9-102 accords the rental agencies special treatment in the first place....
...Wortham, supra at 670, 411 S.E.2d 716. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except BENHAM, C.J., CARLEY and THOMPSON, JJ., who dissent. BENHAM, Chief Justice, dissenting. Faced with a case of first impression concerning the scope of the conditional exemption contained in OCGA § 40-9-102, the majority concludes that a car rental agency which fulfills its duties under the statute so as to be entitled to the statutory exemption provided therein loses that exemption and must take on the role of insurance guarantor because the purpose behind OCGA § 40-9-102 and the public policy of Georgia require it. I respectfully disagree with the majority's analysis and the conclusion it reaches. Accordingly, I dissent. 1. OCGA § 40-9-102 provides a mechanism by which the owner of a U-drive-it rental vehicle is exempted from the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (MVSRA)....
...ing the renter control of the vehicle, either to verify that the renter has his own liability insurance coverage which covers rental vehicles or to require the renter to purchase liability coverage for the vehicle in connection with the rental. OCGA § 40-9-102; Alamo Rent-A-Car v....
...The rental agency may lose its exemption only by turning over a rental car without having ascertained that the renter has liability insurance coverage for the rental vehicle either through the renter's personal policy or through a policy issued in conjunction with the rental. OCGA § 40-9-102....
...of liability insurance is not available to compensate the other driver and her passenger for the damages caused by the additional driver of the rental car. 2. The majority takes the position that the lack of insurance covering the renter causes OCGA § 40-9-102 to operate so as to put the rental agency in the position of a guarantor of insurance coverage. Relying on language in Continental Cas. Co. v. Owen, 90 Ga.App. 200(2), 82 S.E.2d 742 (1954), and Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Hamilton, 216 Ga. App. 659, 455 S.E.2d 366 (1995), the majority concludes that OCGA § 40-9-102 is "in the nature of a bond" which makes the rental agency a guarantor to protect the public against irresponsible renters of motor vehicles....
...endorsement or provision "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." OCGA § 33-7-11(a)(1). Like the compulsory insurance statute, OCGA § 40-9-102 is a legislative effort to have insurance coverage available. However, like the compulsory insurance law, OCGA § 40-9-102 is not a guarantee that insurance coverage is available in all instances. Accordingly, the avowed goal of insurance coverage for all injured is not sufficient justification to negate the public policy embodied in the statutory exemption of OCGA § 40-9-102....
...to the renter) will no longer be valid. Instead, a rental agency can only ensure the existence of liability coverage by selling a policy of insurance to the renter in conjunction with the rental. Accordingly, a rental agency desirous of gaining the § 40-9-102 exemption will have to require the renter to purchase insurance coverage, even if the renter has existing coverage. Not only does the majority's interpretation of § 40-9-102 negate the portion of the statute authorizing the statutory exemption upon determining the existence of pre-existing coverage, it also invalidates the holding in Atlanta Rent-A-Car v....
...[4] As a result, I must respectfully dissent from the majority, which does not see the existence of the alleged tortfeasor's insurance coverage as a relevant factor in this case. I am authorized to state that Justice CARLEY and Justice THOMPSON join in this dissent. NOTES [1] OCGA § 40-9-102 provides: Any person who rents motor vehicles from a U-drive-it owner is required to provide his own insurance, and insurance companies authorized to issue automobile policies in this state shall be required by the Commissioner of Insuran...
...er than its own. However, AutoSave did not seek a specific ruling in this regard, and both the trial court and the Court of Appeals effectively treated AutoSave as the self-insurer of the vehicle. [3] The Court of Appeals stated its belief that OCGA § 40-9-102 "requires each individual operator to carry insurance" in Jones v....
...It is clear that the statute requires only that the renter provide insurance for the rental vehicle. Jones v. Wortham involved a tortfeasor/driver who was also the renter of the rental vehicle. The language in Jones should not be read as a holding that OCGA § 40-9-102 requires every operator of a rental vehicle to have insurance before the vehicle is rented, but must be limited to the factual setting in which it arose—where the operator of the rented vehicle is the renter....