Tuck v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tuck v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York

207 S.E.2d 210, 131 Ga. App. 807, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1563

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 23, 1974

Docket49229

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 S.E.2d 210 (Tuck v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York) 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

Tuck v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, 207 S.E.2d 210, 131 Ga. App. 807, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1563 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, Judge. 1

Is a standard form agreement dealing with *808 workmen’s compensation bearing the board’s approval valid when signed only by the employee and by the employer’s insurance carrier? The answer is "Yes.” The insurer is considered to be the alter ego of its insured, the employer. Mull v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co., 20 Ga. App. 791 (172 SE2d 147); Yancey v. Green, 129 Ga. App. 705 (201 SE2d 162). Additionally, in defining "Employer” the statute provides "If the employer is insured, this term [employer] shall include his insurer as far as applicable.” Code Ann. § 114-101.

Argued April 1, 1974 Decided April 23, 1974 Rehearing denied May 15, 1974 Robert T. Efurd, Jr., W. C. Dominy, for appellant. Charles L. Drew, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

1

This opinion from one noted for "Legal Logorrhea” *808 is aimed to match those of my colleagues who possess the charism of simplification.

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

Clark, Judge. 1

Is a standard form agreement dealing with *808 workmen’s compensation bearing the board’s approval valid when signed only by the employee and by the employer’s insurance carrier? The answer is "Yes.” The insurer is considered to be the alter ego of its insured, the employer. Mull v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co., 20 Ga. App. 791 (172 SE2d 147); Yancey v. Green, 129 Ga. App. 705 (201 SE2d 162). Additionally, in defining "Employer” the statute provides "If the employer is insured, this term [employer] shall include his insurer as far as applicable.” Code Ann. § 114-101.

Argued April 1, 1974 Decided April 23, 1974 Rehearing denied May 15, 1974 Robert T. Efurd, Jr., W. C. Dominy, for appellant. Charles L. Drew, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

1

This opinion from one noted for "Legal Logorrhea” *808 is aimed to match those of my colleagues who possess the charism of simplification.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 S.E.2d 210, 131 Ga. App. 807, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuck-v-fidelity-casualty-company-of-new-york-gactapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack