Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

Georgia Supreme Court Rules for Insurance Company In Long-Running Gas Explosion Case

July 5, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Insurance policies, such as those insuring commercial properties, usually contain a subrogation clause. In this context, subrogation means that when the insured suffers losses as the result of a third party’s conduct, the insurance company assumes the right to sue that third party for damages. Having paid the insured person’s claim, the insurance company then seeks compensation from the party who caused the claim to be paid in the first place.

But what happens when the insured party believes it has not been fully compensated for his or her loss? Must the insurance company “make whole” the insured before pursuing its own subrogation rights? This past May, the Georgia Supreme Court addressed that question and answered “no,” at least with respect to insurance policies covering commercial properties.

Justices Decline to “Invent a Right” To Be “Made Whole”

Georgia Court Upholds Disputed Accident Settlement, Reverses Award of Attorney’s Fees

June 29, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

What constitutes a binding settlement in a personal injury matter? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question in a case arising from a 2010 motor vehicle accident. The parties disagreed as to whether their settlement talks produced an enforceable agreement.

The accident in question seriously injured one man, who incurred significant medical expenses. The driver of the other vehicle that caused the victim’s injuries had an insurance policy with a $25,000 limit. The victim offered to settle with the driver for that amount.

The victim requested a $25,000 check, together with a limited-liability release and proof of the coverage limit by a certain date. The driver’s attorney responded by seeking clarification with respect to the terms of the limited-liability release. The attorney provided sample language and invited comments from the victim and his attorney. The victim’s attorney then responded with his own draft of a release. The driver’s attorney responded with additional proposed revisions.

Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Impact of 2008 Amendment to Uninsured Motorist Insurance Requirements

June 28, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Although personal injury is generally regulated by state law, federal courts often hear such cases because of what’s known as diversity jurisdiction. That is to say, when the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states, the defendant may seek to transfer–or remove–the case from state to federal court. Diversity can exist even if one or both parties are a corporation or similar entity; a corporation is a “citizen” of the state where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.

When federal courts hear personal injury cases, they must still follow the established law in the state where the plaintiff filed suit. On occasion, a federal court will ask the state’s supreme court to clarify certain questions of state law. The Georgia Supreme Court did just that in a June 17 opinion arising from a personal injury lawsuit.

Does a 2008 Law Change a Policy Issued In 2001?

Georgia Court of Appeals Holds State Must Pay Attorney Fees Under “Offer of Settlement” Rule

June 21, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In 2005 the Georgia legislature adopted a controversial tort reform law that included an “offer of settlement” provision. Under this rule, either party in a tort action can make a pretrial settlement offer. If the other party rejects they offer, they can be held liable for the offering party’s attorney fees depending on the outcome of the subsequent trial. In the case of a plaintiff’s offer, the defendant is liable if the jury returns a judgment that is more than 125% of the rejected offer. Conversely, the plaintiff is liable if the jury returns an award that is less than 75% of a rejected defense offer.

A Prisoner Successfully Sues the State

While the offer of settlement rule clearly applies to personal injury lawsuits among private parties, what about torts committed by employees of the State of Georgia? The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed this question arising from a lawsuit brought by an inmate at Walker State Prison in Rock Springs. The inmate, David Lee Couch, had volunteered to help paint the prison warden’s home. The house was under renovation, and Couch fell through a rotted part of the floor. He said he was never warned about the dangerous condition of the floor before entering the home, which was owned by the Georgia Department of Corrections.

Driver Exclusions Can Deny Accident Victims Access to Damages

June 14, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Under Georgia law, an automobile insurance policy may exclude certain individuals from coverage. For example, if you purchase insurance coverage for your vehicle, you may want to exclude your child from coverage if he has a poor driving record; such an exclusion can improve your own insurance rate. The courts will generally honor an exclusion if it is clear and unambiguous.

A recent decision by a federal judge in Macon helps explain this subject. The underlying case arose from a fatal December 2006 automobile accident. One person–the driver deemed solely responsible for the accident–died while another man suffered serious injuries. In 2008, the surviving injury victim filed a negligence suit in Dooley County Superior Court against the estate of the deceased driver. The victim also sued the driver’s parents, who owned the car, for negligent entrustment, that is negligently providing their son with access to their automobile.

The parents held an insurance policy on their automobile from Progressive Max Insurance Company. About a month before the accident, the father signed a “Name Driver Exclusion Election” listing his son as an excluded driver. The language of the exclusion stated, “No coverage is provided for any claim arising from an accident or loss involving a motorized vehicle being operated by an excluded driver.” This included any claims made against the parents or their son for “vicarious liability” arising from the son’s operation of the vehicle. Vicarious liability refers to the responsibility of a superior for the acts of his agent. This commonly arises in cases where a company is liable for negligent acts committed by an employee.

Georgia Woman Granted New Malpractice Trial After Judge Allowed Hearsay Testimony

June 7, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a personal injury or medical malpractice case, it’s crucial that trial judges only admit relevant evidence from credible witnesses. It’s especially important that witnesses testify as to their personal knowledge of events rather than relate information they heard from other people. This is known as “hearsay,” and while it’s permissible in certain special circumstances, as a general rule it’s not admissible as evidence in Georgia courts.

The improper admission of hearsay testimony recently prompted the Georgia Court of Appeals to grant a woman a new trial in her medical malpractice case against the Atlanta-based Emory Clinic. Her complaint arose from a 2002 surgery performed at the clinic to remove a benign brain tumor. The neurosurgeon allegedly failed to remove all of the cotton fibers from the surgical sponges used during the surgery, This caused inflammation, which was subsequently discovered when the woman sought treatment at a different facility.

The woman sued Emory Clinic. A jury later returned a verdict in favor of the defense. The woman asked the Court of Appeals to set aside the jury verdict on two grounds: First, the trial judge improperly admitted hearsay testimony; and second, the judge failed to dismiss a juror whose niece had ties to several witnesses in the case. The Court of Appeals never addressed the juror issue because it agreed with the woman that there was improper admission of hearsay evidence, which in and of itself justified a new trial.

Georgia Law Does Not Require Used Car Dealers to Look for Defective Tires?

May 31, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Is a used car dealer responsible for selling a van with defective tires? A divided Georgia Court of Appeals recently weighed in on this question, declaring that dealers are not negligent when they fail to perform a basic inspection that would show a vehicle they sold had the wrong make and size of tires. car crash.jpg

The court’s decision arose from a fatal 2008 accident involving a Chevrolet Sport passenger van. In 2006, Redding Swainsboro Ford Lincoln Mercury acquired the van as a customer trade-in. Redding then sold the van wholesale to another dealer, S&S Auto Sales. S&S in turn sold the van to a passenger transportation company. The company used the van to transport workers to a poultry processing plant. In May 2008, the driver lost control of the van when the tread belt on the left-front tire separated. The van crossed the opposing traffic lane and crashed into a tree. One of the eight passengers died and the other seven suffered serious injuries.

According to the passengers, the tire that failed was designed for a smaller passenger vehicle. The van required light truck tires. Neither the van’s current owner nor the two used car dealers that previously owned the vehicle noticed this defect.

Georgia Court Says Insurer’s “Promise” Enough to Form Binding Settlement in Personal Injury Cases

May 24, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Following an automobile accident, it’s common for injured parties to seek compensation, either from the person who caused the accident or their insurance company. It’s usually in an insurance company’s interest to settle accident claims without litigation. But a settlement is predicated on both sides coming to a mutual agreement. The insurance company shouldn’t be allowed to pull a “bait-and-switch” and change the terms of a settlement unilaterally.

Unfortunately, that’s just what happened in a March decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals. A sharply divided seven-judge panel upheld a “settlement” between an accident victim and an insurance company where the latter never actually agreed to the proposed terms. Nonetheless, a majority of the appeals court declared there was a binding contract.

Attorney vs. Insurance Company

Tesla Motor’s Libel Suit Against Top Gear Hits A Roadblock

March 7, 2013 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

As a fan of the BBC series Top Gear and a civil litigation lawyer, it was with peaked interest I read the recent decision of Tesla Motors v. British Broadcasting Corporation, England and Wales Court of Appeals (Civil Division). The story of this case began with a 2008 Top Gear episode with a road test of the Telsa Roadster, conducted and narrated by the show’s host Jeremy Clarkson. During the episode, Jeremy put the vehicle through it’s paces and was rather critical of it’s performance. Tesla Motors was not pleased and sued BBC for libel alleging Top Gear made false statements about the Roadster, specifically comments by Jeremy that the vehicle only made it 55 miles on the track instead of Tesla’s promoted range of 200 miles.

As an American personal injury lawyer, I admittedly know very little about the merits of pursuing a libel suit in the United Kingdom’s court system. However, it makes no sense for a car manufacturer to blame it’s lackluster sales on a Top Gear episode. Anyone that watches the show knows its primary goal is to entertain car enthusiasts. Top Gear doesn’t claim to be some sort of British Consumer Reports conducting objective scientific tests on the best cars to buy. A typical test is conducted on a track at breakneck speed or some sort of crazy race against a jet, train or dog sled. Rarely will the average motorist ever find himself driving a vehicle under the insane conditions a car finds itself on Top Gear, which is exactly what Lord Justice Martin Moore-Bick wrote in the published opinion.

Georgia Dangerous Product and Child Safety Update; Frosted Mini-Wheats and Trader Joe’s Peanut Butter Recalled

October 25, 2012 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

As a father of three children who enjoy Kellogg’s frosted mini-wheats, I was quite disturbed by the voluntary product recall for the frosted and unfrosted mini-wheats original and bite size this week. Apparently, flexible metal fragments from a faulty manufacturing machine were found to be in the cereal. The products subject to recall fall under the ‘better used by dates’ of April 1, 2013 – September 21, 2013. Kellogg is working with retail grocery stores to remove the tainted boxes and fortunately, no injuries have been reported to date. For more information about the recalled cereals, please go to Kellogg’s website consumer alerts.

However, that is not the case with a recent peanut butter recall linked to Trader Joe’s Creamy Salted Valencia Peanut Butter that contain the salmonella virus. It has been reported that 29 individuals in 18 states contracted the virus with ¾ of all the cases were children under the age of 18. Luckily, no deaths have been reported. Trader Joes Consumer Updates lists the specific products subject to recall or call (626) 599-3817 for further information.

What is a parent to do? Cereal and peanut butter are two staples in my household and part of a balanced diet. As a Georgia Trial Lawyer and informed parent, I can only hope that these recalls will reduce illness and eliminate catastrophic injuries as we try and protect the health and safety of our children.