The Georgia Supreme Court reversed an appellate court decision and in effect affirmed a Floyd County Superior Court Judge in an automobile insurance case Monday.

In a 5-to-2 decision, justices ruled that the Georgia Court of Appeals was wrong to reverse Judge J. Bryant Durham’s ruling to not allow the “stacking” of several insurance policies to maximize the amount of coverage available to an injured man.

“Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that (Sen. Cecil) Staton was entitled to stack the uninsured motorist coverage from his employer’s insurance policies, which covered vehicles that were not involved in the car accident in which he was injured? The short answer is ‘yes,’” the opinion stated.

In 2003, Staton, R-Macon, was headed from his Rome home to a dinner engagement when he was hit head-on by another driver, according to briefs filed in the case.

At the time of the wreck, Staton was driving one of three cars owned by his employer, Smyth & Helwys Publishing Inc., in which he was an officer and the majority shareholder.

He was severely injured and required multiple surgeries the cost of which exceeded the uninsured motorist coverage of $100,000 provided through State Farm. Staton sought to stack the policies for the company’s three cars in order to collect a total of $300,000 in coverage.

Uninsured motorist coverage protects policyholders from drivers who are uninsured or underinsured.

State Farm filed a motion in Floyd County seeking a ruling on the stacking issue. Durham held the total available to Staton was $100,000 because he was not the “named insured” on any of the policies. Rather his corporation was the only entity named on the policies.

Staton, represented by Rome attorney David Guldenschuh, appealed the Floyd County Superior Court decision.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the decision and allowed the stacking of policies — ruling the name of the insured “person” listed in the policy was ambiguous because it was a corporation, not a human being, and the policy specifically defined a “person” as a human being.

The high court ruled that an “insurance contract will be deemed ambiguous only if its terms are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation,” further stating, “we conclude that Smyth and Helwys is the only named insured and the policies are not ambiguous.”

In a dissent authored by Justice George Carley and joined by Chief Justice Carol Hunstein, Carley cited what he referred to the appellate court’s “excellent opinion” in the insurance case that should have been “affirmed in its entirety.”