## Facts

- David Alcazar, age 18, lived with his mother and was an insured under her GEICO family automobile policy providing uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.
- While working on a farm owned by Alcazar’s mother, Christopher Hayes agreed to drive Alcazar to his truck only if Alcazar rode on the trunk of Hayes’s car.
- During the drive, Alcazar was thrown from the trunk and struck his head on the roadway, allegedly suffering serious injuries including permanent brain damage.
- GEICO’s UM coverage required notice “as soon as possible” after an accident and stated that suit would not lie unless the insured fully complied with policy terms.
- Notice to GEICO was not given until approximately one year after the accident; Alcazar and his mother attributed the delay to not realizing UM coverage applied and not initially understanding the extent of injury.

## Issues

1. Whether an insured’s failure to provide notice “as soon as possible” under an uninsured motorist policy automatically forfeits coverage, regardless of prejudice to the insurer.
2. Whether the insurer must show it was prejudiced by delayed notice, and if so, what burden-shifting framework applies.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for GEICO and reversed the intermediate appellate decision.
- The court held that late notice does not automatically forfeit UM coverage; the insurer must show prejudice from the delay.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings under the prejudice-based standard.

## Legal Principles

- A notice provision in UM coverage is not enforced as an automatic forfeiture clause when notice is late; denial of coverage requires prejudice to the insurer.
- Late notice creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, which the insured may rebut by showing the delay did not materially impair the insurer’s ability to investigate, evaluate, or defend.
- The prejudice requirement reflects public policy favoring compensation under UM statutes and limits denial of coverage based solely on technical noncompliance.
- Prior Tennessee precedent applying a no-prejudice rule to late notice in this context was disapproved to the extent inconsistent with the prejudice standard.

## Conclusion

The court adopted a prejudice-based approach to delayed notice under uninsured motorist policies: coverage is not forfeited solely due to late notice, and an insurer may avoid liability only upon a showing of prejudice, subject to a rebuttable presumption framework.


Alcazar v. Hayes, 982 S.W.2d 845 (Tenn. 1998)