Alcazar v. Hayes

982 S.W.2d 845 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On November 3, 1995, P and Hayes (D) were working in chicken houses on a farm owned by P's mother. D asked Hayes for a ride to pick up P's truck. Hayes agreed under the condition that P ride on the trunk of the car since he was extremely dirty. D was flung from the trunk, striking his head on the paved roadway. P was hospitalized for a couple of days and then returned home. P alleges that he suffers injuries as a result of the accident, including permanent brain damage. P was covered under a 'Family Automobile Insurance Policy' issued by GEICO to P's mother. The 'uninsured motorist coverage' provision requires notice as soon as possible after an accident. The policy stated that GEICO had no obligation unless the insured or his legal representative have fully complied with all the policy terms. P qualified as an 'insured' under the policy. Notice was not provided until approximately one year after the accident. P filed a Complaint seeking damages. Hayes was listed as a defendant and GEICO was added as a party defendant in accordance with Tennessee's uninsured motorist statute. P and his mother claimed that notice was not provided earlier because they mistakenly assumed that the policy did not apply since P was not the driver of the automobile involved in the accident. P's mother testified that she did not intend to make a claim until nearly a year after the accident because she did not learn until this time the extent of P's brain injury. GEICO moved for summary judgment. P argued that notice was provided 'as soon as possible' and that the policy could not be forfeited because there was no evidence that GEICO was prejudiced by the delay. The court granted GEICO’s motion and the appeals court affirmed. P appealed.