In a ruling that highlights how courts may scrutinize procedural defenses in uninsured motorist (UM) cases, the Court of Appeals of Georgia has reversed a trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Alfa General Insurance Corporation. The decision, issued on May 12, 2025, allows a policyholder’s UM claim to proceed—even though the insurer wasn’t served in the original lawsuit within the usual limitation period.
The case, Evon Sylvia Gallman v. Alfa General Insurance Corporation (Case No. A25A0256), stems from a February 2017 auto accident. Gallman initially sued the other driver, Lawrence Thomas, in May 2019. Although that case was dismissed for failure to serve Thomas, it was later reinstated because the statute of limitations had been tolled while criminal proceedings against Thomas were pending—consistent with Georgia Code § 9-3-99.
Gallman served Alfa, her UM carrier, with the original suit in July 2021. One month later, she voluntarily dismissed the action. In December 2021, she filed a renewal complaint and served Alfa the next day. Alfa moved for summary judgment, arguing that it hadn’t been timely served in the original suit. The trial court agreed, but the Court of Appeals did not.
Writing for the panel, Judge Markle emphasized that under Georgia’s renewal statute (OCGA § 9-2-61), a plaintiff can refile a dismissed lawsuit within six months, and service in that renewed action can satisfy legal requirements. Citing Georgia’s UM statute, OCGA § 33-7-11(d), the court reaffirmed that an insurer must be served “as though the insurance company were actually named as a party defendant” when a vehicle is believed to be uninsured.
Importantly for the insurance industry, the court pointed to multiple prior rulings—including Retention Alternatives v. Hayward and U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Reid—to support its position that service on the UM carrier in the renewal action is legally sufficient, even if the original service was untimely.
Because Alfa acknowledged it was properly served in the renewal suit, the appellate court concluded that Gallman perfected service under Georgia law. The lower court’s dismissal was reversed, with Judges Doyle and Padgett concurring.
For insurance professionals managing UM claims, this decision reinforces a key procedural point: a policyholder’s delay in serving an insurer in the original case may not be fatal if they act properly in a timely renewal. While the ruling doesn’t alter insurance policy language, it does reassert Georgia’s approach to procedural fairness in UM coverage disputes.
