Grissom v. Gleason, S92A0217

• Citation: 418 S.E.2d 27,262 Ga. 374
• Decision Date: 09 July 1992
• Docket Number: No. S92A0217,S92A0217
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Parties: GRISSOM et al. v. GLEASON et al.

Page 27

418 S.E.2d 27

262 Ga. 374

GRISSOM et al. v. GLEASON et al.

No. S92A0217.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 9, 1992.

Reconsideration Denied July 30, 1992.

Thomas S. Carlock, D. Gary Lovell, Jr., Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Atlanta, for Grissom et al.

James Lee Ford, Ford & Haley, David C. Cole, Atlanta, for Gleason et al.

William S. Stone, William S. Stone, P.C., Blakely, amicus curiae appellee.

Elizabeth F. Bunce, Middleton & Anderson, P.C., Savannah.

C. Frederick Overby, Butler, Wooten, Overby & Cheeley, Columbus.

Patrick A. Dawson, Butler, Wooten, Overby & Cheeley, Atlanta.

FLETCHER, Justice.

We granted this application for interlocutory appeal to decide whether the Motor Carrier Act violates the state equal protection clause by permitting an injured person to sue the insurance carrier in the same action brought against the motor carrier. Adhering to our previous decisions that the joinder does not violate equal protection, we affirm.

A.B. Grissom was driving a tractor-trailer truck owned by Dixie Hauling Company when he struck and killed Edward P.J. Gleason. Melanie Gleason, as sole heir and administrator of her father's estate, sued Grissom and Dixie Hauling for negligence. She also sued Integral Insurance Company, which provided liability insurance to Dixie Hauling in lieu of a bond, as provided under OCGA § 46-7-12. Grissom and Dixie Hauling moved to drop Integral as a defendant on the grounds that OCGA § 46-7-12(e) violates equal protection under this court's decision in Denton v. Con -Way S. Express, Inc., 261 Ga. 41, 402 S.E.2d 269 (1991). The trial court denied the motion and issued a certificate of immediate review.

1. OCGA § 46-7-12(e) provides:

It shall be permissible under this article for any person having a cause of action arising under this article in tort or contract to join in the same action the motor carrier and its surety, in the event a bond is given. If a policy of indemnity insurance is given in lieu of bond, it shall be permissible to join the motor carrier and the insurance carrier in the same action, whether arising in tort or contract.

This joinder provision does not make an arbitrary or unreasonable classification in violation of Article I, Section I, Paragraph II of the Constitutions of Georgia of 1877 and 1945 or the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Lloyds America v. Brown, 187 Ga. 240, 243, 200 S.E. 292 (1938); Harper Motor Lines, Inc. v. Roling, 218 Ga. 812, 818, 130 S.E.2d 817 (1963). In Harper Motor, as in this case, the motor carrier argued that the joinder provision prejudiced it by injecting the matter of insurance into the case and was an unreasonable classification without any rational basis. Finding that the Lloyds decision controlled, we held that the joinder of the motor carrier and its insurer in the same action did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the Georgia Constitution. Id. We find nothing new in Dixie Hauling's argument that would change our previous holdings.

2. Dixie Hauling, however, contends that our prior decisions are no longer controlling because of changes in the equal protection clause of the Constitution of Georgia of 1983. The equal protection clause in prior Georgia Constitutions provided: "Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete." Ga. Const., Art. I, Sec. II, Par. III ( § 2-203) (1976); Art. I, Sec. I, Par. II ( § 2-102) (1945); Art. I, Sec. I, Par. II ( § 2-102) (1877). The 1983 Constitution contains a second sentence in the paragraph, which states: "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws." Ga. Const., Art. I, Sec. I, Par. II (1983).

The addition of the second sentence to the second paragraph of the 1983 Constitution does not require a new equal protection rule in this state. See Horton v. Hinely, 261 Ga. 863, 864, 413 S.E.2d 199 (1992). Prior to the adoption of the 1983 Constitution, this court interpreted the "impartial and complete" provision as comparable to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. State v. Sanks, 225 Ga. 88, 91, 166 S.E.2d 19 (1969); Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Wright, 125 Ga. 589, 601, 54 S.E. 52 (1906), rev'd on other grounds, 207 U.S. 127, 28 S.Ct. 47, 52 L.Ed. 134 (1907). Since the adoption of the 1983 Constitution, we have reiterated that the protection of the equal protection clause in the 1983 Georgia Constitution and the United States Constitution is coextensive. Ambles v. State, 259 Ga. 406, 383 S.E.2d 555 (1989). ¹

We disapprove of Denton v. Con Way to the extent that it suggests a new equal protection analysis. Despite the concurring opinions' invocation of stare decisis, the Denton decision is an aberration in this court's interpretation of the equal protection provision. A fundamental problem with the % iDenton opinion, which neither special concurrence addresses, is its failure to provide a standard for applying the "impartial and complete" provision. The opinion does not explain what the provision means, to whom it applies, or how it offers more protection than the explicit guarantee of equal protection immediately following it.

Moreover, the legislative history of the 1983 Constitution does not support the Denton opinion's conclusion that "impartial and complete" must mean something different than equal protection. ² The legislative history shows that a primary conflict concerning the equal protection clause was between supporters of the "impartial and complete" language and advocates of an explicit guarantee of equal protection. See, e.g., Select Comm. on Constitutional Revision, Transcripts of Meetings, Dec. 17, 1979, at 11-21, 39-41; Jan. 9, 1980, at 42-44, 51-55; Legis.Overview Comm., June 17, 1981, at 103-117. The Article I and Select Committees recommended an express prohibition against the denial of equal protection. ³ See Comm. to Revise Art. I, Nov. 9, 1979, at 6-8; Select Comm., Dec. 17, 1979, at 52-53. The Legislative Overview Committee, however, deleted the recommendation and reinserted the "impartial and complete" provision from the 1976 Constitution. See Legislative Overview Comm., Vol. I, June 17, 1981, at 111-117. The Georgia General Assembly adopted both provisions as one paragraph entitled "Protection to person and property; equal protection." See 1981 Ga. Laws Extraordinary Session 142, 143. Therefore, the paragraph presented to voters was a compromise between the two views on the best language to guarantee equal protection in the State Constitution. Since this legislative history does not support giving a new meaning to "impartial and complete" protection we reject the recent analysis adopted in the Denton opinion.

3. Because no fundamental right or suspect class is involved, the disparate treatment between motor carriers and other defendants must meet only the rational relationship test. See Wilson v. Zant, 249 Ga. 373, 384 -85, 290 S.E.2d 442 (1982). Under that test, statutory classifications are permitted when the classification is based on rational distinctions and bears a direct relationship to the purpose of the legislation. Home Materials, Inc. v. Home Owners Ins. Co., 250 Ga. 599, 600, 300 S.E.2d 139 (1983).

The differential treatment of motor carriers and other insured defendants is based on a rational distinction directly related to the purpose of the Motor Carrier Act. The statute's purpose is to protect the public against injuries caused by the motor carrier's negligence. OCGA § 46-7-12(a). The statute requires motor carriers to obtain a security bond or, in lieu of the bond, self-insurance or indemnity insurance, "for the benefit of ... any person who shall sustain actionable injury or loss." OCGA § 46-7-12(b), (c), and (d). The carrier's insurance policy "is not one of indemnity against loss as that term is generally understood[,] but is a direct and primary obligation to any person who shall sustain actionable injury or loss." Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Vickers, 183 Ga. 233, 236, 188 S.E. 24 (1936). The injured person may sue the insurer directly on the insurance contract, as in an action against a surety on a surety bond. Id. at 237, 188 S.E. 24; see Farley v. Continental Ins. Co., 150 Ga.App. 389, 390-91, 258 S.E.2d 8 (1979). Permitting joinder of the carrier and insurer in the same action enables injured persons to recover compensation more efficiently and quickly and encourages insurers to resolve legitimate claims by settlement. Because the joinder provision of the Motor Carrier Act bears a reasonable relationship to the state's legitimate interest in protecting the public, the statute does not violate the state's equal protection clause.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except BELL, P.J., BENHAM and SEARS-COLLINS, JJ., who concur specially, and WELTNER, C.J., who dissents as to Divisions 1, 3 and the judgment.

BENHAM, Justice, concurring specially.

Although I agree with the majority that OCGA § 46-7-12(e) is not violative of the Georgia Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law, I am compelled to write separately to decry the majority's unnecessary abandonment of precedent.

"Stability and certainty in law are desirable; stare decisis is a valid and compelling basis of argument. [Cit.]" Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 631, 216 S.E.2d 839 (1975). Barely a year has passed since the decision in Denton v. Con-Way Express, 261 Ga. 41, 402 S.E.2d 269 (1991), was announced by this court. "[T]he doctrine of stare decisis seems to be less viable year by year." Crumbley v. Solomon, 243 Ga. 343, 349, 254 S.E.2d 330 (1979) (Justice Bowles' dissent). The haste with which Denton has been first disregarded (see Horton v. Hinely, 261 Ga. 863, 413 S.E.2d 199 (1992)) and now disapproved damages the reliability and credibility of this court's decisions and adds to instability and uncertainty in the law.

Perhaps the doctrine of stare...