In Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., v. Franks (3/13/2013, GA. APP., A12A2196), the court revisited the increasingly complicated issue of determining In Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., v. Franks (3/13/2013, GA. APP., A12A2196), the court revisited the increasingly complicated issue of determining insurable interest when the ownership of a home is non-traditional. In Franks, Thomas Franks purchased his home in Rome Georgia in August of 2000. At the closing, he was required to bring proof of homeowners insurance. He applied for and purchased homeowner's insurance from Georgia Farm Bureau (GFB) in his own ... Continue Reading
Georgia Court Of Appeals: Defendants’ Maintain Their Right To Contribution For Pre-Trial Settlements
In Zurich American Ins. Co., et al. v. Heard, et al., the Court of Appeals provided clarity to the Georgia Tort Reform statutes and the interplay In Zurich American Ins. Co., et al. v. Heard, et al., the Court of Appeals provided clarity to the Georgia Tort Reform statutes and the interplay between O.C.G.A. §§ 51-12-32 and 51-12-33.[1] In its decision, the Court affirmed the legislature’s decision to leave O.C.G.A. § 51-12-32 intact as part of the 2005 Tort Reform legislation. The Court’s decision was based on a straightforward application of O.C.G.A. §§ 51-12-32 and 51-12-33, and is beneficial to defendants in several regards. First, the decision ... Continue Reading
District Court Order Could Have Major “IMPAC” On Payment Of Insurance Proceeds
A recent Order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denying an insurer's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim A recent Order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denying an insurer’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim has placed insurers and their adjusters in an interesting predicament with regard to issuing payment after a loss when one of the payees is the named mortgagee under the subject insurance policy. See Impac Funding Corporation, as master servicer for Impac CMB Trust Series 2005-4 v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, 2013 WL 1136860 (N.D. ... Continue Reading
Changes To Um/Uim Coverage In Georgia And Avoiding Bad Faith In Responding To Demands Within Policy Limits
Beginning January 1, 2009, changes to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (herein UM coverage) went into effect to allow the option for stacking of UM coverage Beginning January 1, 2009, changes to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (herein UM coverage) went into effect to allow the option for stacking of UM coverage. The stated intent of the bill passed by the Georgia Senate in March 2008 was “to change the definition of “uninsured motor vehicle” to allow uninsured motorist coverage to be stacked with other available liability coverages.” Senate Bill 276. This stacking ... Continue Reading
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation Claims From The Perspective Of A Liability Carrier
This paper is intended to be a refresher on workers' compensation subrogation claims in the context of liability cases. This paper is intended to be a refresher on workers’ compensation subrogation claims in the context of liability cases. While the issues are fairly straightforward, there are several practical considerations to remember in a case where your insured is sued by someone who has been paid workers’ compensation benefits. For example, consider a case where you insure ABC trucking company. One of its drivers was in an accident with the driver of XYZ company in the course and scope of employment. The driver for XYZ is ... Continue Reading
Apportionment Against Parties And Non-Parties Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33
In 2005, the Georgia General Assembly amended O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, the statute governing joint liability among tortfeasors. The amended statute arguably In 2005, the Georgia General Assembly amended O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, the statute governing joint liability among tortfeasors. The amended statute arguably abolished joint and several liability in favor of mandatory apportionment amongst all parties – plaintiffs, defendants, and non-parties alike. A. How the Statute Works The statute establishes a four-part procedure for apportioning ... Continue Reading
A Constitutional Attack On Florida’s 104 Week Cap For TTD
On February 28, 2013, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, ruled that the 104 week limit on temporary total disability On February 28, 2013, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, ruled that the 104 week limit on temporary total disability benefits under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act, section 440.15(2)(a), was unconstitutional. The underlying claim was brought by a firefighter and paramedic who had injured his back and knee while working for the City of St. Petersburg. Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, No. 1D12-3563 (2/28/13). While recovering from surgery, and while still totally disabled, ... Continue Reading
The Impact Of Violating Private Guidelines On Premises Liability: Samuels V. Cbocs Inc.
The Court of Appeals's recent decision in Samuels v. CBOCS Inc., No. A12A1525 (Ga. App. Nov. 27, 2012), suggests that evidence of a violation of a The Court of Appeals’s recent decision in Samuels v. CBOCS Inc., No. A12A1525 (Ga. App. Nov. 27, 2012), suggests that evidence of a violation of a private guideline, by itself, can foreclose a defendant from obtaining summary judgment in premises liability cases. Such a rule could discourage premises owners from establishing rigid private safety, inspection, and cleaning rules. In turn, lax safety guidelines could increase the frequency of accidents. This could not have been the General Assembly’s intent for ... Continue Reading
Property Law Update
In the recent case of Bell v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company., S.E.2d, 2012, 12 FCDR 4011 (Ga.App. Nov. 30, 2012) the insureds (the Bells) challenged In the recent case of Bell v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company., S.E.2d, 2012, 12 FCDR 4011 (Ga.App. Nov. 30, 2012) the insureds (the Bells) challenged an appraisal award that favored Liberty Mutual. The Bells’ home was damaged by fire on April 26, 2008. They submitted a claim to Liberty Mutual for the policy limits of their dwelling and personal property. Pursuant to the its ... Continue Reading
In Default? It May Not Be A Death Sentence
A default judgment occurs were a defendant does not timely answer a complaint filed against it. The time for filing an answer is 30 days after service of VOLUME 25, NO. 145 JANUARY 2013 A default judgment occurs were a defendant does not timely answer a complaint filed against it. The time for filing an answer is 30 days after service of process. While the default is automatic after the 30 days, Georgia allows for a 15 day grace period, during which time default may be opened as a matter of right. After that 45 days, default can be opened only by order of the trial ... Continue Reading