A Georgia appeals court just told insurers that pre-filling UM limits on applications is not enough to prove a policyholder chose lower coverage.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia, in a decision dated March 16, 2026, reversed a trial court ruling that had sided with Trustgard Insurance Company in a dispute over the amount of uninsured motorist coverage available under a commercial auto policy. The case turns on a question that should give every commercial auto underwriter and compliance officer pause: what does it actually take to prove that a policyholder affirmatively chose UM coverage below the liability limit?
The facts are straightforward. Stephen Michael Sullivan applied to Trustgard, through an independent broker, for a commercial auto policy on behalf of his company, Southeast Sealing, Inc. Trustgard sent back a quote for a policy with a $1 million liability limit and a $100,000 UM limit. It then emailed an application that had already been filled in with those same numbers. There was no field on the application for Sullivan to request a different UM amount.
The application did include a section on uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages, but that section stated on its face that it was not to be used in Georgia – a state-specific supplement was required instead. Sullivan says no such supplement was ever provided. Trustgard pointed to a separate document that explained UM coverage options and gave the insured a place to initial a selection or reject UM coverage entirely. That document, however, was blank – no initials, no signatures, nothing.
Trustgard issued the policy anyway, with a declarations page reflecting the $100,000 UM limit. When Sullivan was rear-ended on Interstate 285 by another driver, Brittany Singletary, and sustained lasting injuries, the UM limit became the central issue. Sullivan argued he was entitled to $1 million in UM coverage, matching the liability limit. Trustgard said the limit was $100,000. The trial court agreed with Trustgard.
The appeals court did not.
Under Georgia law, specifically OCGA § 33-7-11(a)(1), insurance policies issued in the state must include UM coverage at either a minimum of $25,000 per person or equal to the bodily injury liability limit, whichever is higher. That liability-limit amount is the default. The only way for the UM limit to be lower is if the insured affirmatively chooses the reduced amount. The statute does not require that choice to be in writing, but the insurer still bears the burden of proving the choice was actually made.
That is where Trustgard ran into trouble. The court found that sending a pre-populated quote and application, where the UM limit was chosen by the insurer and the policyholder had no mechanism to change it, does not amount to an affirmative election. The unsigned UM election form did not help either. And while the broker testified that it was his usual practice to explain UM options to clients, he never testified that Sullivan or anyone at Southeast Sealing actually requested the lower limit.
The court also pushed back on the idea that Sullivan's act of signing the application should be treated as an affirmative choice. Georgia's legislature, the court noted, has singled out UM coverage for special treatment – requiring more than passive acceptance of whatever appears on a form. Even a declarations page showing lower UM limits, standing alone, is not enough to support an inference that the insured made a deliberate choice.
The court drew a clear line between this case and others where insurers had succeeded. In one prior case, the insured had signed a statement explicitly confirming a choice of lower UM limits. In another, the insured had completed a form changing her UM coverage from the liability limit to a lesser amount. In a federal case Trustgard relied on, the application included a disclaimer in which the insured acknowledged that UM options had been explained and that the limits shown had been selected. None of those facts existed here.
The legislative history reinforced the court's reasoning. Before 2001, Georgia law required the insured to affirmatively request UM coverage above the minimum. The General Assembly flipped that framework, making full liability-limit UM coverage the default and requiring an affirmative step to reduce it. The court viewed Trustgard's process as inconsistent with that shift.
The practical takeaway for insurers operating in Georgia is clear. Pre-populating UM limits on applications, even when paired with an explanatory UM election form, will not satisfy the burden of proving affirmative choice if the insured never actually signs, initials, or otherwise confirms the selection. Without that documented election, the UM coverage defaults to the liability limit – and in this case, that means $1 million instead of $100,000.
For now, the case stands as a pointed reminder that when it comes to UM elections in Georgia, the paperwork matters – and silence on the insured's part does not count as a choice.
