Home Insurance Co. v. Burnett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Home Insurance Co. v. Burnett

246 S.E.2d 394, 146 Ga. App. 355, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2353

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 22, 1978

Docket55248

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 246 S.E.2d 394 (Home Insurance Co. v. Burnett) 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

Home Insurance Co. v. Burnett, 246 S.E.2d 394, 146 Ga. App. 355, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2353 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

Appeal was taken from the judgment of the Whitfield Superior Court affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation. Held:

1. The award of the full board stated in part: "The sole issue to be determined in this claim is that of jurisdiction. Code § 114-411 governs a claim where, as here, the work-related accident occurred outside this state. Uncontradicted testimony adduced at hearing establishes that claimant’s state of legal residence is Georgia and that his contract of employment was to be performed in Georgia as well as Tennessee. The foregoing conditions satisfy the requirements of § 114-411 and thus it follows that jurisdiction in this claim properly lies in Georgia.” The award was based on an erroneous legal theory that because the claimant’s residence was in Georgia and part of the contract was to be performed in Georgia, under Code § 114-411 Georgia had jurisdiction of the workmen’s compensation claim resulting from an out - of-state injury.

In fact, Code § 114-411 provides that for Georgia to [356]*356have jurisdiction of an injury which occurs outside of the state:(l) the contract must be entered into in Georgia, (2) the claimant must reside in Georgia or the employer have a place of business in Georgia. Since the award was based on an erroneous legal theory, the judgment of the superior court affirming the award of the workmen’s compensation board is reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the board for action in accordance with what is stated in this opinion.

Argued February 6, 1978 Decided June 22, 1978. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Robert R. Potter, James T. McDonald, Jr., for appellants. Mitchell, Mitchell, Coppedge, Boyett, Wester & Bates, J. Raymond Bates, Jr., Warren N. Coppedge, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Bell, C. J., Webb, Smith, Banke and Birdsong, JJ., concur. Deen, P. J., McMurray and Shulman, JJ., dissent.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

Appeal was taken from the judgment of the Whitfield Superior Court affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation. Held:

1. The award of the full board stated in part: "The sole issue to be determined in this claim is that of jurisdiction. Code § 114-411 governs a claim where, as here, the work-related accident occurred outside this state. Uncontradicted testimony adduced at hearing establishes that claimant’s state of legal residence is Georgia and that his contract of employment was to be performed in Georgia as well as Tennessee. The foregoing conditions satisfy the requirements of § 114-411 and thus it follows that jurisdiction in this claim properly lies in Georgia.” The award was based on an erroneous legal theory that because the claimant’s residence was in Georgia and part of the contract was to be performed in Georgia, under Code § 114-411 Georgia had jurisdiction of the workmen’s compensation claim resulting from an out - of-state injury.

In fact, Code § 114-411 provides that for Georgia to [356]*356have jurisdiction of an injury which occurs outside of the state:(l) the contract must be entered into in Georgia, (2) the claimant must reside in Georgia or the employer have a place of business in Georgia. Since the award was based on an erroneous legal theory, the judgment of the superior court affirming the award of the workmen’s compensation board is reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the board for action in accordance with what is stated in this opinion.

Argued February 6, 1978 Decided June 22, 1978. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Robert R. Potter, James T. McDonald, Jr., for appellants. Mitchell, Mitchell, Coppedge, Boyett, Wester & Bates, J. Raymond Bates, Jr., Warren N. Coppedge, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Bell, C. J., Webb, Smith, Banke and Birdsong, JJ., concur. Deen, P. J., McMurray and Shulman, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 S.E.2d 394, 146 Ga. App. 355, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/home-insurance-co-v-burnett-gactapp-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack