Car Accident Attorney in Atlanta Advertising. The Perazzo Law Firm, Atlanta, Georgia. This article explains a Georgia court opinion in general terms. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. No outcome is guaranteed or predicted.

Georgia Uninsured Motorist Settlement: Must You Use Up the Other Driver’s Policy First?

Georgia’s case-law “exhaustion requirement” does not, by itself, decide whether an uninsured motorist (UM) claim can be settled before the liability claim. In Cravens v. Slaughter, decided September 22, 2026, the Supreme Court of Georgia said the rule comes from earlier lawsuits against UM carriers, and the Court of Appeals was wrong to apply it to a settlement dispute. The Court did not decide whether a settlement happened, and a UM policy can still require exhaustion by contract. Weighing a UM offer after a metro Atlanta crash? See how the firm handles Atlanta car accident claims or call (404) 669-6997.

What the Georgia Supreme Court Decided

According to the official opinion (p. 2), Jack Cravens was rear-ended by a driver in her employer’s vehicle. He asserts a shoulder injury and medical expenses above $150,000. The at-fault driver’s policy, issued by Auto-Owners, carried $50,000 in liability limits. His own UM policy, also with Auto-Owners, carried $100,000.

The Court of Appeals had reasoned that liability coverage must be exhausted before UM benefits are available, so settling the UM claim meant the liability claim had settled too (opinion, pp. 3-4). The Supreme Court vacated that decision. It explained that Daniels, Thompson and Carter each arose in a lawsuit seeking UM benefits, and that nothing in Daniels “necessarily extends that holding to preclude settlement of UM claims before exhausting liability coverage” (opinion, p. 11).

The Court also found the statutes the defendants relied on, including O.C.G.A. §§ 33-7-11 and 33-24-41.1, silent on the timing and terms of an offer to settle a UM claim (opinion, pp. 12-13).

What the Court Left Open

• Whether a settlement happened. The Court left that question to the Court of Appeals on remand (opinion, p. 14, n. 11).
• Whether Daniels and its follow-on cases were correct. The Court did not overrule them. It said it was not addressing whether their holdings were correct or survive stare decisis, and it read Daniels as necessarily precluding a lawsuit for UM benefits before liability coverage is exhausted (opinion, p. 11 and n. 8).
• Policy language. The Court said its ruling should not be read as casting doubt on a UM carrier contracting for exhaustion of liability coverage as a prerequisite to UM coverage (opinion, p. 11, n. 8).

What This Means If Your Own Carrier Makes an Offer

Read the exhaustion language in your policy. The Court said a UM policy is a contract, and its terms govern the timing and conditions under which payment may be obligated, within the confines of the law (opinion, p. 11, n. 8).

Cravens also shows how the two claims can tangle. Slaughter and her employers asked the trial court to enforce the earlier liability negotiations, pointing to the liability check and proposed release that Cravens’s counsel included with the UM demand (opinion, pp. 2-3). Consider having a lawyer review any release before you sign it. If your carrier is slow or refuses to pay, see your rights when a Georgia insurer won’t pay.

This Ruling Can Still Change

The opinion states on its face that it is subject to modification through motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions, and that the final version will replace it (opinion, first page). The case also returns to the Court of Appeals, so the outcome for Cravens is not settled.

Questions about your policy or a UM offer? Call The Perazzo Law Firm at (404) 669-6997 or reach out through our contact page. The consultation is free. We charge no attorney fee unless we recover for you*, and costs may apply.

* No fee if no recovery. Our attorney's fee is contingent on a recovery, but you may still be responsible for court costs and case expenses, as set out in your written contingency fee agreement. Contingent fees are not permitted in all types of cases.