Georgia has a serious uninsured driver problem. Estimates put the percentage of Georgia drivers without liability insurance consistently above the national average. When an uninsured or underinsured driver causes a crash, the injured party’s own auto policy ‚Äî specifically the uninsured motorist coverage ‚Äî becomes the primary source of recovery. The 2008 amendments to O.C.G.A. 33-7-11 fundamentally changed how that coverage works, making the choice between two coverage types one of the most consequential decisions a Georgia policyholder makes without fully understanding the difference.
The Statutory Framework
Under O.C.G.A. 33-7-11(a)(1), every auto insurer in Georgia must offer uninsured motorist coverage with each new or renewed automobile liability policy. The coverage is not mandatory for the policyholder — it can be rejected in writing — but the insurer must make the offer. If the insured does not reject the coverage in a signed writing, the policy is deemed to include it at the same limits as the liability coverage.
UM coverage in Georgia applies in two situations. First, when the at-fault driver has no liability insurance. Second, when the at-fault driver has insurance but the coverage is insufficient to fully compensate the injured party — the underinsured motorist scenario. Under the statute, both situations are treated within the same UM framework, unlike many states that require separate UIM endorsements.
The 2008 Amendment: Two Coverage Types
Before the 2008 amendment to 33-7-11, all Georgia UM policies were “reduced-by” policies. The 2008 amendment, which took effect January 1, 2009, changed the default and introduced the “add-on” option. Understanding the difference between the two is the central practical issue.
Add-on coverage ‚Äî also called “stacking” coverage ‚Äî means the UM limits stack on top of whatever liability coverage the at-fault driver carries. If the at-fault driver has $25,000 in liability coverage and the injured party has $100,000 in add-on UM coverage, the total available recovery is $125,000. The UM limits add to the tortfeasor’s limits rather than replacing them.
Reduced-by coverage ‚Äî also called “difference in limits” coverage ‚Äî offsets the UM limits by the amount recovered from the at-fault driver. Using the same numbers, a policyholder with $100,000 in reduced-by UM coverage who recovers $25,000 from the at-fault driver has only $75,000 of UM coverage remaining available ‚Äî the at-fault driver’s payment reduces the UM benefit dollar for dollar. The total available in the reduced-by scenario is still $100,000, not $125,000.
Add-On Is Now the Default
The 2008 amendment mandated that add-on coverage is the default. Under 33-7-11(b)(1)(D)(ii), an insured must affirmatively elect reduced-by coverage in writing to obtain the less protective option. An insurer that cannot produce a written election for reduced-by coverage must provide add-on coverage regardless of what the policy documents might otherwise suggest.
This matters in litigation. When coverage disputes arise after a crash, the question is often whether a valid written election of reduced-by coverage exists. If the insurer cannot produce one, the insured is entitled to add-on coverage. Policyholders who believe they have reduced-by coverage should verify whether they actually signed a written election — many did not, and their policies may provide broader coverage than they realize.
Rejection of UM Coverage
An insured who does not want UM coverage at all must reject it in writing. Under 33-7-11(a)(3), the rejection form must specifically identify the coverage being rejected. A general statement that the insured does not want additional coverage is insufficient. Courts have scrutinized rejection forms closely and required that they satisfy the statutory specificity requirement. A facially defective rejection means the insured has UM coverage whether or not they intended to purchase it.
Limits and Hit-and-Run Claims
Georgia law requires that UM limits be offered at the same level as the policy’s liability limits, though the insured may elect lower UM limits in writing. Minimum UM coverage in Georgia tracks the minimum liability requirements ‚Äî $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for bodily injury.
Hit-and-run claims present a specific procedural requirement. Under 33-7-11(b)(1)(D)(i), a UM claim based on a hit-and-run — where the at-fault driver cannot be identified — requires either physical contact between the vehicles or an independent witness who can corroborate the accident. An insured who claims a phantom driver caused a crash without physical contact must have a witness to support the claim. This requirement has barred otherwise legitimate claims where no contact occurred and no witness was available.
Why It Matters
The distinction between add-on and reduced-by coverage is one that most policyholders do not understand at the time of purchase. Insurance agents sometimes default to presenting reduced-by as the standard option because it carries a lower premium. After a serious crash, the difference between the two can represent tens of thousands of dollars in available recovery. Reviewing UM coverage type and limits before an accident — and verifying the written elections or rejections on file — is the kind of policy audit that can determine whether an injured client has meaningful recovery options.
Disclaimer
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is
not intended to serve as legal advice. While I am a paralegal, I am not a licensed attorney, and the content shared here should not be construed as such.
No attorney-client relationship is formed through the use of this blog or by any communication with me. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Laws change frequently and may vary by county or city; this blog reflects a general understanding of Georgia law as of the date of publication.
I strive to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date; however, I make no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of any information contained on this blog. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.
Thank you for visiting my blog, and please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments!