James Hankins wins summary judgment in UM coverage case where the Plaintiff argued the UM rejection form with an electronic signature did not comply with Georgia law.  In Smith-Allen v. Pearson-Kendrick, et. al., the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Mr. Pearson-Kendrick, and initially, the Plaintiff served Esurance as his purported UM carrier.  When Esurance filed its answer to the case, the Plaintiff then amended his complaint and asserted a breach of contract claim against Esurance.  Esurance moved for summary judgment, arguing the Plaintiff had rejected UM coverage on the policy, providing the UM rejection form.  Plaintiff initially argued the UM rejection form did not comply with Georgia law because it contained an electronic signature.  Then, the Plaintiff argued the signatures on the different policy documents varied, and thus, there was an issue of fact on whether the Plaintiff elected to reject UM coverage.  In support of its motion, Esurance offered evidence to show how an insured like the Plaintiff would navigate the portal to make changes to an insured’s policy, and Esurance showed that the computer forms in the system created and populated an electronic signature into the form when an insured selected that he/she accepted the changes.  The Court agreed with Esurance that the Plaintiff rejected UM coverage and then granted Esurance’s motion for summary judgment.