Partner Jay Eidex Wins Motion for Summary Judgment in Unique UM Case Involving a Tractor

November 5, 2025. Partner Jay Eidex won Summary Judgment for his client in a unique case involving a county-owned tractor that was mowing grass on the side of the highway. The case arose out of a collision that occurred on March 25, 2024. A Jenkins County, Georgia employee was driving a Kubota tractor on GA 67. The tractor was owned by the County and had a bushhog attachment for mowing grass. A vehicle driving on Hwy 67 struck the tractor, causing the tractor to roll over. The driver of the automobile was cited for causing the collision.

The operator of the tractor brought a claim against the driver of the vehicle and served the UM carrier that insured the county, alleging UM coverage should apply to the tractor as a County vehicle. The policy in question provided a schedule of vehicles for “Property Damage” and a separate schedule for “Autos.” The policy provided that “owned autos” are provided UM/UIM coverage. The tractor in question was scheduled as “property” but not scheduled as an “auto.” Plaintiff argued that the vehicle was designed for use on roadways and if it was not scheduled, the carrier would need to have obtained a selection/rejection form to reject UM coverage.

Mr. Eidex moved for summary judgement for his client, the UM/UIM carrier. He argued that the policy makes a distinction between “autos” and “mobile equipment” and that the tractor in question was not registered as a motor vehicle and was a tractor with a bushhog attachment for which the primary purpose was cutting grass. Mr. Eidex argued that Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. The Onionman Co., LLC, 369 Ga. App. 597 (2023) was controlling regarding the requirement of a selection/rejection form. In that case, a driver of a tractor attempted to collect UM benefits under the Business Auto Policy, but the tractor was not listed as a covered auto. The insurer also failed to get an acceptance/rejection form for UM coverage. The court held that (a) the Policy did not expressly provide UM coverage for the tractor, and (b) the tractor was “mobile equipment” and therefore not an auto, and, for that reason, the lack of an acceptance/rejection form was irrelevant. He further argued that the vehicle not being scheduled as an auto in the policy made the selection/rejection argument irrelevant.

After briefing and oral argument, Judge Lovett Burnett Jr. of the Superior Court of Jenkins County found the vehicle not being scheduled as an auto was dispositive and granted Mr. Eidex Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case is Roger Saxon and Vickie Saxon v. Rashida Frison and Matthew Frison, Sr., Superior Court of Jenkins County, CAFN SUCV2024000062.

Recent Posts