Travelers Insurance v. Bumstead

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Travelers Insurance v. Bumstead

187 S.E. 736, 54 Ga. App. 284, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 541

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 26, 1936

Docket25015

StatusPublished

This text of 187 S.E. 736 (Travelers Insurance v. Bumstead) 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

Travelers Insurance v. Bumstead, 187 S.E. 736, 54 Ga. App. 284, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

Under the answers of the Supreme Court, to questions certified to it by this court, in effect that an insurance company, which has insured an employer and under the policy has paid compensation fox a personal injui’y to a person employed by the employer, has no legal rignt to assert its claim for reimbursement and subrogation under section 2 (d) of the workmen’s compensation act as amended by the act of 1922 (Ga. L. 1922, p. 185; Code, § 114-403) by intervening in an action at law by the employee against the alleged tortfeasor for the personal injuries, so as to prevent the employee from dismissing the action without the consent of the insurance company, and that the rule would not be different if the intervention was allowed without objection and no exception was taken to the order of allowance (Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bumstead, 182 Ga. 692, 186 S. E. 742), the trial court in the instant case did not err in granting the motion of the defendant, the alleged tortfeasor, over the objections of the insurance company, to dismiss the case and strike it from the trial calendar, after a compromise settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

Under the answers of the Supreme Court, to questions certified to it by this court, in effect that an insurance company, which has insured an employer and under the policy has paid compensation fox a personal injui’y to a person employed by the employer, has no legal rignt to assert its claim for reimbursement and subrogation under section 2 (d) of the workmen’s compensation act as amended by the act of 1922 (Ga. L. 1922, p. 185; Code, § 114-403) by intervening in an action at law by the employee against the alleged tortfeasor for the personal injuries, so as to prevent the employee from dismissing the action without the consent of the insurance company, and that the rule would not be different if the intervention was allowed without objection and no exception was taken to the order of allowance (Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bumstead, 182 Ga. 692, 186 S. E. 742), the trial court in the instant case did not err in granting the motion of the defendant, the alleged tortfeasor, over the objections of the insurance company, to dismiss the case and strike it from the trial calendar, after a compromise settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 736, 54 Ga. App. 284, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-insurance-v-bumstead-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack