Generally, plaintiffs may pursue UM claims only after an insurer offers and the plaintiffs accept an amount equal to the limits stated in the liability policy and the plaintiffs execute a limited release in accordance with OCGA § 33-24-41.1.

A recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision, Barker v. Muschett, 375 Ga. App. 585, 916 S.E.2d 796 (2025), illustrates just how costly a mistake in a release can be.

The case serves as an important warning: If you have a Georgia UM/UIM policy and intend to pursue UM/UIM benefits after accepting the liability carrier’s policy limits, you must comply with Georgia’s statutory requirements for a limited liability release. Y

The Problem in Barker v. Muschett

The case arose from an automobile collision in which Katherine Barker sought compensation for her injuries after she was involved in a wreck in Georgia.

The at-fault driver’s insurance policy had a $25,000 liability limit. Barker made a policy limits demand and the liability carrier offered to settle her claim for those policy limits in exchange for a release. Barker accepted the $25,000 payment.

The problem was with the release.

Barker’s release discharged the at-fault driver from claims arising from the collision, except to the extent that other insurance coverage was available. But the release did not contain language releasing the at-fault driver’s insurance carrier from liability.

Barker subsequently attempted to pursue UM benefits through her own automobile insurance policy.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Barker’s release did not comply with Georgia law and therefore did not preserve her UM claim.

The trial court agreed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed.

Why the Release Mattered

Georgia law provides a specific statutory procedure for a person who wants to settle with the at-fault driver’s liability insurer while preserving a UM claim.

That procedure is found in O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1.

The statute was enacted to allow an injured person to accept the at-fault driver’s liability insurance limits while still pursuing additional compensation under his or her own UM/UIM coverage.

But there are requirements.

The Georgia Supreme Court has explained that a claimant seeking to preserve a UM claim must:

1. Settle for the limits of the at-fault driver’s liability policy; and
2. Execute a limited release that complies with O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1.

Both requirements must be satisfied.

One of the statutory requirements is that the limited release release the settling insurance carrier from liability for claims arising from the claimant’s injuries.

Barker’s release did not do that.

As a result, the Court held that she had failed to preserve her UM claim.

“But the Release Said I Could Pursue Other Insurance…”

This is what makes Barker particularly important.

Barker argued that the language of her release should be interpreted under ordinary contract principles. Her release preserved claims against the at-fault driver to the extent other insurance coverage was available.

In other words, she argued that the language was sufficient to allow her to pursue UM benefits.

The Court rejected that argument.

The Court explained that Georgia’s statutory procedure had superseded the common-law procedure Barker relied upon. The statute establishes the procedure that must be followed to preserve the UM claim.

The Court therefore affirmed summary judgment against Barker.

The Lesson for Georgia Car Accident Victims

The important takeaway is simple:

Do not sign a liability settlement release until you know exactly what effect it will have on your UM/UIM claim.

A person who has suffered significant injuries may have damages far greater than the at-fault driver’s insurance limits. For example, imagine that:

• The at-fault driver has only $25,000 in liability coverage;
• Your medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages substantially exceed $25,000; and
• You have substantial UM/UIM coverage under your own automobile policy.

It may make sense to accept the at-fault driver’s $25,000 policy limits and then pursue the additional UM/UIM coverage.

But the settlement must be structured correctly.

A release that fails to comply with O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1 can jeopardize the additional insurance claim.

That is precisely what happened in Barker.

Why You Should Have an Attorney Review the Release

Insurance companies routinely prepare settlement documents. Once a release is signed and the settlement is completed, it may be extremely difficult—or impossible—to undo the consequences of the release.

This is especially important when there may be:

• Uninsured motorist coverage;
• Underinsured motorist coverage;
• Multiple insurance policies;
• Commercial vehicle coverage;
• Umbrella or excess coverage; or
• Other potentially available insurance.

The question is not simply, “How much money is the insurance company offering?”

The more important question may be:

“What rights am I giving up by signing this release?”

Before accepting a settlement, an experienced Georgia personal injury attorney should evaluate the applicable insurance policies, the proposed release, and the statutory requirements for preserving any UM/UIM claim.

The Bottom Line

Barker v. Muschett is a cautionary tale for anyone settling a Georgia automobile accident claim.

The Court of Appeals held that a claimant who settles with the at-fault driver’s insurer but uses a release that does not comply with O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1 may lose the ability to pursue UM/UIM benefits.

If you have been injured in a Georgia car accident and the at-fault driver’s insurance is not enough to cover your damages, do not sign a settlement release before determining whether you have UM/UIM coverage and whether the settlement documents will preserve that claim.

A seemingly routine settlement document can have consequences far beyond the settlement check.

By: Annette Kelley