Hartford Accident &c. Co. v. Tolison
Decision Date | 15 November 1968 |
Docket Number | 43740. |
Citation | 118 Ga. App. 660,165 S.E.2d 192 |
Parties | HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY et al. v. TOLISON. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Brackett, Lyle & Arnall, H. P. Arnall, Claud F. Brackett, Jr., for appellants.
Charles L. Drew, for appellee.
The sole question for decision is whether, in a claim for workmen's compensation, the employer or insurance carrier is entitled to credit for sums received by the employee in settlement of a claim against the third party tortfeasor causing the injuries, where the written notice provided for by Code Ann. § 114-403 is not given by the employer or carrier to the employee or to the tortfeasor. Code Ann. § 114-403 provides: (Emphasis supplied.)
It is readily apparent from the plain wording of the statute that it is only "upon giving such written notice" that a lien against the recovery and right to subrogation arises by virtue of that statute; and, since no written notice has been given up to this point, it only remains to be determined whether the statute constitutes the exclusive authority for crediting the employer or carrier with sums paid by the tortfeasor.
Prior to Ga. L. 1922, p. 189, amending the Workmen's Compensation Act by enacting the forerunner of the present Code Ann. § 114-403, the injured employee was entitled to the full amount of damages from the tortfeasor and the full amount of compensation payable under the Act; and a settlement by the employee with the tortfeasor did not inure to the benefit of the employer and could not be pleaded by him in bar of compensation. Atlantic Ice &c. Corp. v. Wishard, 30 Ga. App. 730 (1, 3) (119 SE 429). It was only by virtue of the amendment of 1922 that the employee's right to both compensation from the employer and damages from the tortfeasor was circumscribed so that the employer or carrier was entitled to reduce the amount of compensation by the amount of damages recovered. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crist, 86 Ga. App. 584, 589 (71 SE2d 910); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Luckey, 46 Ga. App. 593, 595 (167 SE 907); Atlantic Ice &c. Corp. v. Wishard, supra. Cf. Continental Cas. Co. v. Swift & Co., 222 Ga. 80 (148 SE2d 489).
Since it is only by virtue of statute that a reduction or credit is authorized, and the terms of the statute have not yet been met, it must follow that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spengler v. Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co.
...of the instant cases, the employer-carrier's right to subrogation became fixed and vested as of that time. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Tolison, 118 Ga.App. 660, 165 S.E.2d 192. 5. There is nothing in the repealing statute (Ga.L.1972, p. 3) to authorize us to conclude that it is to have a ......
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Windsor
...employer/insurer 'was entitled to reduce the amount of compensation by the amount of damages recovered.' Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Tolison, 118 Ga.App. 660, 165 S.E.2d 192. Thus, the right of subrogation for the employer/insurer existed exclusively by virtue of Code Ann. § 114-......
-
White v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...to the person contended to be liable and to those entitled to recover on account of the employee's death. Hartford Accident &c. Co. v. Tolison, 118 Ga.App. 660, 661, 165 S.E.2d 192. While the notice was to claimant's attorney, such notice is notice to the client employing the attorney, and ......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Crowder
...46 Ga.App. 299(2), 167 S.E. 543; Jones v. American Mutual liability Ins. Co., 48 Ga.App. 351, 172 S.E. 600; Hartford Accident &c. Co. v. Tolison, 118 Ga.App. 660, 662, 165 S.E.2d 192; Gravitt v. Ga. Casualty Co., 158 Ga. 613, 123 S.E. 897; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Davis, 172 Ga. 258, 157 S.E.......