Lamb v. Salvation Army, A09A2353.

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
Citation687 S.E.2d 615,301 Ga. App. 325
Docket NumberNo. A09A2353.,A09A2353.
Decision Date24 November 2009
687 S.E.2d 615
301 Ga. App. 325
No. A09A2353.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
November 24, 2009.

Herald J.A. Alexander, Atlanta, for appellant.

Bovis, Kyle & Burch, Stuart S. Busby, Anne-Marie Shipe, Atlanta, for appellee.


In this declaratory judgment action, Janella Lamb appeals from the trial court's dismissal of a notice of appeal she previously had filed to challenge the court's grant of an emergency motion filed by The Salvation Army. Lamb contends that the court's order on the emergency motion was directly appealable and, therefore, that the court erred in finding that the order was interlocutory and in dismissing her notice of appeal therefrom due to her failure to comply with the interlocutory application requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34(b). For the following reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred in

687 S.E.2d 616

dismissing Lamb's notice of appeal. Consequently, we reverse the court's order and remand the case with direction.

The record shows the following facts.1 In October 2006, while employed by The Salvation Army, Lamb was involved in an automobile collision. As a result of the collision, she incurred nearly $1 million in medical expenses. The Salvation Army paid Lamb's medical expenses pursuant to the terms of its Employee Health Plan. In June 2007, Lamb filed a tort action against third parties who were involved in the collision.

In February 2009, The Salvation Army learned that Lamb had settled a claim against one of the defendants in the tort action for that defendant's primary insurance limits of $1 million. The Salvation Army also learned that there was at least $4 million in additional, excess insurance coverage available in the tort action. Lamb did not notify The Salvation Army of the settlement with that defendant prior to consummating the settlement. The Salvation Army sent a letter to Lamb's counsel requesting prior notice of any settlement in the underlying tort action, pursuant to OCGA § 33-24-56.1,2 but Lamb's counsel insisted that Lamb was not required to provide such notice.

As a result, on March 11, 2009, The Salvation Army filed a complaint for declaratory relief requesting that the trial court determine the extent, if any, that The Salvation Army could share in any prior or future settlements between Lamb and the defendants in the tort action. The complaint also asked the court to order Lamb to provide The Salvation Army with the requisite statutory notice, pursuant to OCGA § 33-24-56.1, prior to the consummation of any settlements or the trial in the underlying tort action so that The Salvation Army would be able to protect its reimbursement interests. In an emergency motion filed the same day, The Salvation Army repeated its request for an order directing Lamb to provide the disclosures required by OCGA § 33-24-56.1.


To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Jones v. Peach Trader Inc., S17A1314
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • October 31, 2017
    ...v. Khan , 299 Ga. 548, 787 S.E.2d 731 (2016) ; Sotter v. Stephens , 291 Ga. 79, 727 S.E.2d 484 (2012) ; Lamb v. Salvation Army , 301 Ga. App. 325, 687 S.E.2d 615 (2009) ; Hughes v. Sikes , 273 Ga. 804, 546 S.E.2d 518 (2001) ; Azar v. Baird , 232 Ga. 81, 205 S.E.2d 273 (1974). But our cases ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT