Gulf American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 05 June 1979
• Docket Number: No. 57267,57267
• Citation: Gulf American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Taylor, 257 S.E.2d 44, 150 Ga.App. 179 (Ga. App. 1979)
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: GULF AMERICAN FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY et al. v. TAYLOR.

Page 44

257 S.E.2d 44

150 Ga.App. 179

GULF AMERICAN FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY et al. v. TAYLOR.

No. 57267.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Argued Feb. 6, 1979.

Decided June 5, 1979.

Heyman & Sizemore, Patrick L. Swindall, William H. Major, Atlanta, for appellants.

Barwick, Bentley, Hayes & Karesh, Thomas S. Bentley, Sanford R. Karesh, Atlanta, for appellee.

CARLEY, Judge.

In this worker's compensation case the administrative law judge awarded benefits to appellee and this ruling was affirmed by the full board and the superior court. The only objection to compensability of the injury of appellee is based upon the argument of Lav-A-Stone Industries of the Southeast and its insurance carrier that appellee was an independent contractor rather than an employee of Lav-A-Stone.

It is undisputed that appellee had an ongoing working relationship with Lav-A-Stone and that for some projects he would be paid by the hour and for others he would be paid by the job. Sometimes appellee would hire a helper and pay him a percentage of appellee's gross pay and on other occasions appellee would do all of the work himself. However, in every case whether appellee worked alone or with others and regardless of whether he was paid by the hour or the job five percent of the gross amount due to appellee was deducted by Lav-A-Stone for worker's compensation insurance. More significantly, the sums so deducted were actually paid to the carrier, Gulf American. Furthermore, appellee testified that Lav-A-Stone's owner as well as appellee's immediate supervisor told him that the five percent deductions were to provide appellee with worker's compensation coverage.

The administrative law judge found that Lav-A-Stone and its insurer were estopped to deny coverage to appellee because of the deduction from appellee's earnings of five percent thereof and because of the payment of the sums deducted to the carrier. The administrative law judge's finding, which was adopted by the full board, and affirmed by the superior court, relied upon the case of Hill-Harmon Pulpwood Co. v. Walker, 237 Ga. 736, 229 S.E.2d 607 (1976).

Appellants attempt to distinguish Hill-Harmon because of an apparent difference between the policy of insurance in that case and the policy issued by Gulf American in the case at bar. The opinion in Hill-Harmon indicates that the policy there involved did cover the employer and vendors. The appellants contend that the policy in this case covered only employees. However, a review of the record reveals that it would be more accurate to say that the worker's compensation policy naming employer Lav-A-Stone as insured did not Expressly recite coverage of "independent contractors."

Nevertheless, the policy issued by the carrier upon which appellants base their denial of payment of benefits to appellee clearly states the obligation of the insurer "(t)o pay promptly when due all compensation and other benefits required of the insured by the workmen's compensation law." Included within that same policy is the following language, to wit: "16. Terms of Policy Conformed to Statute Coverage A: Terms of this policy which are in conflict with the provisions of the workmen's compensation law are hereby amended to conform to such law." That "law" is to "be construed reasonably and liberally with a view of applying the beneficent provisions of the statute so as to effectuate its purposes, and to extend them to every class of workman and employee that can fairly be brought within the provisions of the act." Lee v. Claxton, 70 Ga.App. 226, 228, 28 S.E.2d 87, 88 (1943). See also Gaither v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority, 144 Ga.App. 16, 240 S.E.2d 560 (1977), and Ratliff v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 149...