ATLANTA – A question about paperwork is all that’s keeping the Georgia Supreme Court from granting a state senator three times the insurance proceeds State Farm says he’s due.

In 2003 Sen. Cecil Staton, R-Macon, who owns a home in Rome, was on his way at to meet friends for dinner when he was involved in a head-on collision on Bells Ferry Road. His black Suburban was totaled, and Staton was taken to a Rome hospital.

The accident led to multiple surgeries and prompted him to become a vocal advocate for a statewide trauma-care network.

But Monday, Staton sat silently on a bench in the audience and watched as the state’s highest court heard from his lawyer and the insurance company’s lawyer.

His lawyer, David Guldenschuh, told the seven justices that Staton should get the $100,000 policy limit on each of the three cars the legislator’s publishing company owns and insures with State Farm. He said that Staton wanted three individual policies and thought his agent and State Farm had issued the policies that way, which would entitle him to the larger amount.

But State Farm’s attorney, Thomas Allen, said Staton only bought a policy with Smyth & Helwys Publishing Inc. listed as the "named insured" or covered party, and he was only due $100,000 as someone riding in the company car at the time of the wreck.

"You can’t say, ‘my agent told me I was covered’ if you have the policy and can read it yourself," Allen said, adding that insurance law says courts have to interpret policies as a layman would read them.

Guldenschuh, though, said the policies were confusing and Staton was right to expect the agent and the insurance company to have complied with his wishes.

"Mr. Staton could not have been in a position to understand what the impact of the ‘named insured’ is in this case," Guldenschuh told the justices. "There have been two courts looking at this issue, and they have found differently on this issue. And now you have decided it is worthy for your review. So how would Mr. Staton, who is not a lawyer, be able to look at the policy and understand what the impact of the ‘named insured’ was?"

According to Guldenschuh, the form was ambiguous. In cases where insurance policies aren’t clear, courts can look at other documents to sort out the coverage. He said letters from State Farm listing the drivers of the publishing company’s vehicles indicate the policies were three personal policies as Staton wanted, not one corporate policy as State Farm says.

On Friday, Staton told the Rome News-Tribune, “State Farm is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are trying to rate on the individual, but then after that they want to slap the name of a company on top of that so that they can avoid stacking,” said Staton. “Typically companies don’t get the same benefits of stacking as individuals do. We’re arguing there is ambiguity of policy.”

Allen did concede that making a corporate policy fit the same paperwork used for personal policies led to wording that was "simply imprecise," but he said that didn’t make it ambiguous.

The justices offered no clues on how they will rule. They’ll hand down their decision on the civil case — Supreme court case State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Staton et al — in about three months.

Rome News-Tribune staff writer Elizabeth Cady contributed to this report.

Click here for previous story.