Andrews v. Ford Motor Co. Ford Motor Co. v. Andrews.

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: ELLINGTON, Chief Judge.
• Citation: Andrews v. Ford Motor Co. Ford Motor Co. v. Andrews., 310 Ga.App. 449, 713 S.E.2d 474 (Ga. App. 2011)
• Decision Date: 01 July 2011
• Docket Number: Nos. A11A0579,A11A0778.,s. A11A0579
• Parties: ANDREWSv.FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al.Ford Motor Company et al.v.Andrews.

310 Ga.App. 449

713 S.E.2d 474

11 FCDR 2232

ANDREWS

v.FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al.Ford Motor Company et al.

v.Andrews.

Nos. A11A0579

A11A0778.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

July 1, 2011.

O. Wayne Ellerbee, Valdosta, for appellant.Young, Thagard, Hoffman, Smith & Lawrence, John Holder Smith, Jr., Valdosta, Huff, Powell & Bailey, Michael Roger Boorman, David Ashcraft Terry, for appellee.ELLINGTON, Chief Judge.

In this products liability action, Shirley Andrews sued Ford Motor Company and Langdale Ford Company (“the Ford companies”) in the Superior Court of Lowndes County for property damages she sustained when her 2002 Ford Expedition caught fire in her garage and for punitive damages. After a hearing on the Ford companies' motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined that Andrews is not entitled to recover from the Ford companies for damages to her car, her home, and her home's contents to the extent that she previously received compensation for those damages from her insurers, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (collectively, “State Farm”). Based on this determination, the trial court granted summary judgment in part to the Ford companies and noted that, “in the event the jury returns a verdict in favor of [Andrews that exceeds the amount she previously received from State Farm], the court[,] in preparing the judgment, will reduce the jury's verdict by the amount of compensation for items previously paid by [State Farm].” The trial court effectively denied the Ford companies' motion for summary judgment as to Andrews' claim for punitive damages, noting “nothing contained in this order shall prohibit [Andrews] from asserting a punitive damages claim against both [of the Ford companies].” In addition, the trial court ruled that Andrews is entitled to present evidence at trial as to the property damage she sustained and that the Ford companies are not entitled to present evidence as to any compensation paid by State Farm (or any other collateral sources).

In Case No. A11A0579, Andrews appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment to the Ford companies because the trial court should have applied the collateral source rule to prevent the introduction of any evidence of insurance payments she received from State Farm. She also contends the trial court erred in granting the insurers' motion to intervene.¹

In Case No. A11A0778, the Ford companies, as cross-appellants, contend the trial court erred in ruling that, despite its partial grant of summary judgment denying Andrews the right to recover from the Ford companies those property damage amounts paid to her by State Farm, Andrews could still introduce at trial evidence related to the damage to her car and home and could still seek punitive damages. The Ford companies argue that implicit in the trial court's ruling is a finding that, by accepting State Farm's payments for the damages sustained, Andrews' right to sue passed to State Farm by assignment and subrogation and that Andrews no longer had standing to sue for those losses.

For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's partial grant of summary judgment in Case Nos. A11A0579 and A11A0778; and we vacate the trial court's order granting State Farm's motion to intervene in Case No. A11A0579 and remand the matter to the trial court for clarification.

The relevant facts are undisputed. On October 6, 2005, Andrews' 2002 Ford Expedition, which was parked in her garage, spontaneously caught fire during the night as the result of an allegedly defective, factory-installed cruise control switch. The fire destroyed the Expedition and damaged Andrews' home and its contents, including her husband's 2004 Ford Explorer that had been parked beside the Expedition.

Shortly after being notified of the fire, State Farm began issuing checks to Andrews or her contractors for work done to clean or to repair the premises, compensating her insured losses. State Farm, pursuant to the homeowners policy, paid approximately $50,000 for damages to Andrews' home and its contents. State Farm also made a payment pursuant to the automobile policy's comprehensive coverage provision to the lienholder of Andrews' Ford Expedition, paying $21,109, which represented the car's actual cash value, taxes, and license and title fees, and which extinguished Andrews' debt but left no net amount payable to her, other than her refunded deductible. It appears that Andrews was completely compensated for her insured losses under the terms of the policies.

Andrews brought this action against Ford Motor Company, under theories of negligence, product liability, and failure to warn, and against Langdale Ford Company, the licensed dealer from whom she had purchased the Expedition new, under theories of breach of warranty and failure to warn. Andrews seeks compensatory damages of approximately $20,000 for the loss of her car, compensatory damages of approximately $100,000 for damage to her home and its contents and for “additional living expenses,” and she also seeks punitive damages.

1. In Case No. A11A0579, Andrews contends the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment to the Ford companies, arguing that the application of the collateral source rule bars the Ford companies from presenting any evidence as to insurance payments made by State Farm.

We agree that the collateral source rule bars the Ford companies from presenting evidence at trial that Andrews received compensation from her insurers. Indeed, the trial court correctly ruled as such. Andrews' reliance on the collateral source rule as a basis for reversing the trial court's summary judgment ruling, however, is misplaced.

Generally, the collateral source rule prevents a defendant tortfeasor from presenting evidence to the jury that the plaintiff previously received compensatory payments from another source, such as the plaintiff's own insurer. Hoeflick v. Bradley, 282 Ga.App. 123, 124(1), 637 S.E.2d 832 (2006). Underlying this rule is the premise that “[a] tortfeasor cannot diminish the amount of [its] liability by pleading payments made to the plaintiff under the terms of a contract between the plaintiff and a third party who was not a joint tortfeasor.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Adkins v. Knight, 256 Ga.App. 394, 396, 568 S.E.2d 517 (2002).² The trial court's ruling in this case, which provides that the Ford companies may not present evidence of State Farm's payments to Andrews, already provides her with the protections afforded by the collateral source rule.

Nevertheless, even when the collateral source rule applies and the court excludes from the trial evidence that the plaintiff received compensation from someone other than the tortfeasor, the rule does not provide that a plaintiff is entitled to collect from both his or her insurer and from the defendant tortfeasor for the same item of damages. Such a double recovery is prohibited under fundamental equitable principles. Carter v. Banks, 254 Ga. 550, 552(1), 330 S.E.2d 866 (1985) (“[A]n insured ought not to collect damages for his [or her] loss from both his [or her] insurer and the tortfeasor, [because that would result in] a double recovery.”) (citation omitted). See also Overstreet v. Ga. Farm, etc. Ins. Co., 182 Ga.App. 415, 417(1), 355 S.E.2d 744 (1987) (“[A] plaintiff may not recover twice for the same loss.”). Andrews has not demonstrated any error in the trial court's ruling that, in the event of a favorable verdict, she will not be allowed to collect from the Ford companies for her property damages to the extent she has received compensation for those damages from State Farm.

2. In Case No. A11A0778, the Ford companies contend that, as a result of the trial court's partial grant of summary judgment, Andrews' claims for property damage were completely extinguished. The Ford companies contend that, by virtue of Andrews accepting State Farm's payments for her property damages, her right to sue passed to State Farm by assignment and subrogation such that Andrews has no standing to sue the Ford companies and should not be allowed to proceed to trial and present evidence on those claims. Moreover, because Andrews does not have any claims for compensatory damages apart from her claims for property damage, and because, without a valid claim for compensatory damages, a plaintiff cannot pursue a claim for punitive damages,³ the Ford companies contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment on Andrews' claim for punitive damages.

These arguments lack merit, however, as the Ford companies have misconstrued the trial court's order. As explained in Division 1, supra, the trial court ruled that, because Andrews may not secure a double recovery, the amount of any verdict in her favor and against the Ford companies on her claims for property damage (if the award exceeds the amount she previously received from State Farm) will be reduced by the amount of compensation for those same items of damages that she previously received from State Farm. The trial court did not rule, on the other hand, that, as a matter of law, the Ford companies did not breach a duty owed to Andrews or otherwise rule that they cannot be held liable in tort for her damages under the theories of recovery alleged. ⁴ Because the trial court's judgment does not constitute a determination as a matter of law that the Ford companies are not liable on Andrews' claims for compensatory damages, they failed to show that the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment on Andrews' claims for punitive damages.

Moreover, the fact that State Farm acquired by subrogation the right to sue Ford Motor Company to recover the payments it made to its insured for covered losses ⁵ did not result in an assignment which divested Andrews of her cause of action and, therefore, which prevented her from presenting...