Canal Indemnity Co. v. Allstate Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Canal Indemnity Co. v. Allstate Insurance

427 S.E.2d 66, 207 Ga. App. 69, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 250, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 67

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1993

DocketA92A1661

StatusPublished

This text of 427 S.E.2d 66 (Canal Indemnity Co. v. Allstate Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canal Indemnity Co. v. Allstate Insurance, 427 S.E.2d 66, 207 Ga. App. 69, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 250, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 67 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Presiding Judge.

The relevant facts in this appeal are as follows: Ms. Carol Holder was injured while operating a borrowed vehicle. This vehicle was covered by a policy issued by appellant-plaintiff. Appellant paid no-fault benefits to Ms. Holder and took from her an assignment of her right to recover those benefits under a policy that had been issued to her parents by appellee-defendant. Pursuant to this assignment, appellant brought suit against appellee. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and appellant appeals.

Appellant is an insurer that provided no-fault benefits to Ms. Holder. Compare Santiago v. Safeway Ins. Co., 196 Ga. App. 480 (1) (396 SE2d 506) (1990) (wherein the assignee of the no-fault claim was a health-care provider and not a no-fault carrier). As an insurer that provided no-fault benefits to Ms. Holder, appellant cannot be subrogated to Ms. Holder’s rights except in the two instances specified in former OCGA § 33-34-3 (d) (1). Neither of those two specified instances are applicable in the instant case. It follows, therefore, that the trial court correctly granted appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Judgment affirmed. Pope, C. J., and Johnson, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carley, Presiding Judge.

The relevant facts in this appeal are as follows: Ms. Carol Holder was injured while operating a borrowed vehicle. This vehicle was covered by a policy issued by appellant-plaintiff. Appellant paid no-fault benefits to Ms. Holder and took from her an assignment of her right to recover those benefits under a policy that had been issued to her parents by appellee-defendant. Pursuant to this assignment, appellant brought suit against appellee. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and appellant appeals.

Appellant is an insurer that provided no-fault benefits to Ms. Holder. Compare Santiago v. Safeway Ins. Co., 196 Ga. App. 480 (1) (396 SE2d 506) (1990) (wherein the assignee of the no-fault claim was a health-care provider and not a no-fault carrier). As an insurer that provided no-fault benefits to Ms. Holder, appellant cannot be subrogated to Ms. Holder’s rights except in the two instances specified in former OCGA § 33-34-3 (d) (1). Neither of those two specified instances are applicable in the instant case. It follows, therefore, that the trial court correctly granted appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Judgment affirmed. Pope, C. J., and Johnson, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 S.E.2d 66, 207 Ga. App. 69, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 250, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canal-indemnity-co-v-allstate-insurance-gactapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack