Chattanooga Truck Parts of North Georgia, Inc. v. Roberts

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chattanooga Truck Parts of North Georgia, Inc. v. Roberts

370 S.E.2d 527, 187 Ga. App. 420, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 730

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 3, 1988

Docket76254

StatusPublished

This text of 370 S.E.2d 527 (Chattanooga Truck Parts of North Georgia, Inc. v. Roberts) 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

Chattanooga Truck Parts of North Georgia, Inc. v. Roberts, 370 S.E.2d 527, 187 Ga. App. 420, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 730 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Presiding Judge.

We granted an application for discretionary appeal in this workers’ compensation case to consider the appellant-insurer’s contention that another insurance carrier should be held jointly liable with it for the award of benefits to the claimant.

The claimant sustained a compensable injury on September 26, 1985. Appellant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G) appeared at the initial hearing on the claim and during this hearing stipulated that it had been the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier at the time of the injury. However, after the claimant was awarded benefits by the administrative law judge, USF&G discovered that its insurance coverage had in fact terminated on September 22, 1985, four days prior to the injury, and that a new carrier, Bituminous Casualty Company, had assumed the risk of that date. USF&G accordingly sought a de novo review of the coverage issue by the board. Relying on Food Giant v. Brown, 174 Ga. App. 485 (330 SE2d 183) (1985), the board found USF&G’s prior stipulation of coverage to be conclusive on that issue; and that ruling was affirmed by the superior court. On appeal to this court, USF&G concedes that it is bound by its prior stipulation of coverage but argues that Bituminous Casualty may nevertheless be held jointly liable with it for payment of the claim. Held:

As evidence that another insurer was providing joint coverage at the time of the accident would not contradict USF&G’s prior stipula[421]*421tion in the case, we hold that the board was not precluded from considering such evidence. Compare Food Giant v. Brown, supra. Furthermore, as there appears to be no question that the Bituminous Casualty coverage was in fact in force on the date the accident occurred, there would appear to be no basis upon which it could escape liability on the claim. The decision of the superior court is consequently reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the board for the entry of a new award holding both insurers jointly liable for payment of the benefits previously determined to be due the claimant. Accord Maryland Cas. Co. v. Walls, 184 Ga. App. 267 (361 SE2d 253) (1987), overruled on other grounds in American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Flowery Branch Nursing Center, 258 Ga. 222 (367 SE2d 788) (1988).

Decided June 3, 1988. Timothy H. Allred, Richard H. Sapp III, for appellants. F. Bryant Henry, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.

Birdsong, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

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

Banke, Presiding Judge.

We granted an application for discretionary appeal in this workers’ compensation case to consider the appellant-insurer’s contention that another insurance carrier should be held jointly liable with it for the award of benefits to the claimant.

The claimant sustained a compensable injury on September 26, 1985. Appellant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G) appeared at the initial hearing on the claim and during this hearing stipulated that it had been the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier at the time of the injury. However, after the claimant was awarded benefits by the administrative law judge, USF&G discovered that its insurance coverage had in fact terminated on September 22, 1985, four days prior to the injury, and that a new carrier, Bituminous Casualty Company, had assumed the risk of that date. USF&G accordingly sought a de novo review of the coverage issue by the board. Relying on Food Giant v. Brown, 174 Ga. App. 485 (330 SE2d 183) (1985), the board found USF&G’s prior stipulation of coverage to be conclusive on that issue; and that ruling was affirmed by the superior court. On appeal to this court, USF&G concedes that it is bound by its prior stipulation of coverage but argues that Bituminous Casualty may nevertheless be held jointly liable with it for payment of the claim. Held:

As evidence that another insurer was providing joint coverage at the time of the accident would not contradict USF&G’s prior stipula[421]*421tion in the case, we hold that the board was not precluded from considering such evidence. Compare Food Giant v. Brown, supra. Furthermore, as there appears to be no question that the Bituminous Casualty coverage was in fact in force on the date the accident occurred, there would appear to be no basis upon which it could escape liability on the claim. The decision of the superior court is consequently reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the board for the entry of a new award holding both insurers jointly liable for payment of the benefits previously determined to be due the claimant. Accord Maryland Cas. Co. v. Walls, 184 Ga. App. 267 (361 SE2d 253) (1987), overruled on other grounds in American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Flowery Branch Nursing Center, 258 Ga. 222 (367 SE2d 788) (1988).

Decided June 3, 1988. Timothy H. Allred, Richard H. Sapp III, for appellants. F. Bryant Henry, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.

Birdsong, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 S.E.2d 527, 187 Ga. App. 420, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chattanooga-truck-parts-of-north-georgia-inc-v-roberts-gactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack