Can You Directly Sue an Insurance Company Following a Georgia Auto Accident?

Although insurance companies often pay the bulk of a personal injury judgment against an insured negligent driver, in most cases an accident victim cannot sue the insurer directly. For example, say you are rear-ended by another driver and require medical treatment for your injuries. To obtain compensation, you would file a personal injury lawsuit naming the other driver as the defendant. Even though the defendant has auto insurance, you could not name the insurer as a defendant. If you ultimately obtain a judgment against the driver and they cannot pay, then you could take legal action against the insurer as a third-party claimant.

Georgia Court of Appeals: Lyft Is a “Motor Carrier”

Georgia law does make an exception to this rule, however, when a “motor carrier” is involved. In legal terms, a motor carrier (also called a “common carrier”) is a public or public entity that transports goods or passengers for compensation. A commercial trucking company is an example of a motor carrier. If you are hurt in an accident that involves a vehicle owned, controlled, operated, or managed by a common carrier, then you can name their insurance company as a co-defendant in a personal injury lawsuit.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed whether or not rideshare companies like Lyft and Uber are considered “motor carriers” for purposes of this exception. The case before the Court, Barnes v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, involved a plaintiff injured in a car accident involving a vehicle operated by a Lyft driver. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit naming as co-defendants the driver, Lyft, and State Farm, which was Lyft’s insurance provider. State Farm moved to be dismissed from the case, arguing that Lyft was not a “motor carrier” under Georgia law and therefore could not be directly sued.

The trial court agreed with State Farm and granted it summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, however, holding that State Farm could not prove that Lyft was “exempt from the Georgia Motor Carrier Act’s definition of a motor carrier.” In other words, the plaintiff could name State Farm as a co-defendant.

The Court of Appeals explained that the Motor Carrier Act had several parts. Part 2 contained the definition of “motor carrier.” Part 4 separately defined “ride share network services” such as Lyft. State Farm’s position was that only Part 4 applied to Lyft. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Nothing in the text of the statute prevented a company from being a ride share network services company under 4 while also being a motor carrier under Part 2.

Indeed, Part 2’s definition of “motor carrier” excludes certain types of taxicabs and limousines, which are still subject to regulation under Part 4. Given this, the Court of Appeals said there was no reason that the Part 2 rules were meant to broadly regulate “motor carriers” while Part 4 only covered a narrow subset of those same carriers.

Contact Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers Today

The Court of Appeals’ decision is good news for anyone who is injured in an accident involving an Uber, Lyft, or similar rideshare vehicle. Our Atlanta personal injury lawyers will be happy to sit down and discuss your own rideshare accident case. Contact Hawkins Spizman Trial Lawyers today. We serve clients throughout Georgia including Atlanta, Dunwoody, Alpharetta, Cobb County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Johns Creek and Sandy Springs.