Doran v. Travelers Indem. Co., 41550
Decision Date | 27 February 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 41550,41550 |
Citation | 254 Ga. 63,326 S.E.2d 221 |
Parties | DORAN v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Berrien L. Sutton, Charles R. Reddick, Sutton & Reddick, Homerville, for Dennis Doran.
Bryan F. Dorsey, Dickins & Irvin, Atlanta, for Travelers Indemnity Co.
Dennis Doran (Doran) filed suit against Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) in Clinch Superior Court. Travelers removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Summary judgment for Travelers was granted by the District Court and Doran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit concluded the case presented important issues of Georgia law, determinative of the cause, but without precedent in the decisions of this court. Four certified questions have been presented pursuant to our Rule 37. These questions relate to the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act ( ).
The facts have been carefully and completely stated by the Eleventh Circuit. We quote in part and paraphrase in part:
The Eleventh Circuit's statement of facts goes on to point out that Jones, supra, was later overruled by Van Dyke v. Allstate Ins. Co., 164 Ga.App. 885, 300 S.E.2d 166 (1982), but its holding was reinstated by this court in Flewellen v. Atlanta Casualty Co., 250 Ga. 709, 300 S.E.2d 673 (1983). The statement of facts then concludes:
1. The first of the four questions is: "Did the Travelers act in good faith as a matter of law so as to avoid the sanctions of OCGA § 33-34-6, 1 when it relied upon Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Brown, 155 Ga.App. 767, 272 S.E.2d 755 (1980), as a basis for refusing to pay basic no-fault insurance benefits, and, when that case was reversed six weeks after the refusal, it failed to review its files, pay the claim or notify the insured within thirty days of the refusal?" Answer: Yes.
We arrive at this answer by observing the evolution of Georgia law concerning the correlation of no-fault benefits and workers' compensation benefits. Travelers' refusal to pay basic PIP 2 was based on the contention such benefits were not payable where workers' compensation was paid. The beginning point is the original no-fault statute. Georgia Laws 1974, p. 113, 120. Section 9 provided that no-fault benefits should not be reduced or eliminated by workers' compensation benefits or other similar benefits. 3 This section was challenged in Freeman v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 244 Ga. 80, 259 S.E.2d 36 (1979) supra. In that case, Freeman, an employee of Ryder was injured in Ryder's vehicle while on the job. Freeman claimed both no-fault and workers' compensation from Ryder, a self insurer. Ryder contended workers' compensation provided the exclusive benefits. 4 Freeman contended section 9, supra, required payment of both benefits. While Ryder put forth an equal protection challenge, this court declined to address the merits of that challenge. Instead, the two statutes were construed in a manner to give effect to both, and avoid the conflict. It was held that section 9 applied to Freeman's own no-fault policy covering him and his personal vehicle. He could recover no-fault benefits under his own policy notwithstanding receipt of workers' compensation from Ryder. However, Freeman could not recover no-fault benefits from Ryder because workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy against the employer.
In 1979 section 9 was amended to limit its effect. Ga.Laws 1979, p. 594. Under the amendment there was a correlation of benefits where an employer provided, at his expense, benefits for both...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Cobb County-Kennestone Hosp. Authority
...drawn has some reasonable relation to furthering that purpose, the classification passes muster.' " Doran v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 254 Ga. 63, 67(1), 69, 326 S.E.2d 221 (1985), quoting from Wilder v. State, 232 Ga. 404, 405, 207 S.E.2d 38 Laws enacted by our legislature are presumed to b......
-
International Indem. Co. v. Coachman
...However, in urging a renewal requirement, appellant does not occupy the same position as did the insurer in Doran v. Travelers Indem. Co., 254 Ga. 63, 326 S.E.2d 221 (1985). Appellant makes no contention that a renewal was an administrative necessity after Enfinger, so as to reapprise it th......
-
Phillips v. South Carolina Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 82-361-1-MAC.
...Motor Vehicle Reparations Act. Defendant argues that the recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court in Doran v. Travelers Indem. Co., 254 Ga. 63, 326 S.E.2d 221 (1985) is dispositive of this case. In Doran, the court held that an insurer who issued a policy of automobile liability insuran......
- Brooks v. Department of Transp., 41548
-
A Georgia Practitioner's Guide to Construction Performance Bond Claims - Cheryl S. Kniffen
...Cross & Blue Shield of Ga./Atlanta, Inc. v. Merrell, 170 Ga. App. 86, 87,316 S.E.2d 548, 549 (1984). 76. Doran v. Travelers Indem. Co., 254 Ga. 63, 67, 326 S.E.2d 221, 226 (1985). 77. Because the bad faith claim provision against insurers, codified at O.C.G.A. Sec. 33-4-6 (2000 & Supp. 2008......