Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 07 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | 15099. |
| Citation | 33 S.E.2d 336,199 Ga. 179 |
| Parties | LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. v. MORGAN et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 19, 1945.
Answer to Certified Question Conformed to April 16, 1945.
See 33 S.E.2d 745.
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the facts set forth in the questions certified to this court by the Court of Appeals, the first question, as to the jurisdiction of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation to review its previous award, is answered in the negative. This renders any answer to the additional questions unnecessary.
Anderson Anderson & Walker, of Macon, for plaintiff in error.
Turpin & Lane and Harris, Russell, Weaver & Land, all of Macon, for defendants in error.
The Court of Appeals has certified to this court questions which as amended, are as follows:
'E M. Morgan was employed by R. A. Bowen. Morgan was injured on August 28, 1942. At that time the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Glens Falls Indemnity Company had compensation insurance on operations of the employer, R. A. Bowen. On September 16, 1942, Morgan, the employee, Bowen, the employer, and the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company filed with the then Industrial Board a memorandum of agreement for the payment of compensation, signed by each party named, which was approved by the board on October 12, 1942, and which agreement contained the following provision: Morgan alone signed a supplemental agreement setting forth that his injury was fifty per cent. loss of his right foot and in which he agreed to accept $10 per week rather than $20 as fixed in the first-named agreement. The supplemental agreement was never approved by the board. The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company paid compensation until May 1943, when it stopped payments, contending that the policy issued by Glenn Falls Indemnity Company covered the injury and that its policy did not. The board set the case for a hearing No party contended that there was a change in the employee's condition, and there was no evidence of a change in his condition subsequently to the second agreement signed by the employee.
'1. Did the State Board of Workmen's Compensation have jurisdiction to review the award approved by it to determine which insurance company's policy covered the injury to the employee?
'2. Did the Board have jurisdiction to order that the Glens Falls Indemnity Company reimburse the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for compensation paid by it in the event it found that the former's policy covered the injury and that the latter's did not?
'3. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, (a) Did the Board's jurisdiction to review the settlement agreement approved by the board arise from the authority to review settlements contained in the Code, § 114-709, without reference to the clause in the approval of the settlement agreement attempting to reverse jurisdiction in the board? or
'See Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Lattimore, 165 Ga. 501, 141 S.E. 195; Maryland Casualty Company v. Morris, 68 Ga.App. 239, 22 S.E.2d 627; Reese v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 67 Ga.App. 420, 20 S.E.2d 773; and Code, § 114-709.'
It is the well-established rule, which seems to be conceded here that an award of the Industrial Board, based upon an agreement between an injured employee and his employer, providing for compensation under the terms of the workmen's compensation act for a specific injury sustained by the employee, is, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, binding on the parties. Rourke v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 187 Ga. 636(1), 1 S.E.2d 728; Gravitt v. Georgia Casualty Co., 158 Ga. 613, 123 S.E. 897; Home Accident Insurance Co. v. McNair, 173 Ga. 566, 161 S.E. 131; Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Cook, 195 Ga. 397, 24 S.E.2d 309; New Amsterdam Casualty Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlanta Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Gates
...binding on the parties. Rourke v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 187 Ga. 636(1), 1 S.E.2d 728; Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Morgan, 199 Ga. 179, 181, 33 S.E.2d 336; Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Cook, 195 Ga. 397, 24 S.E.2d The section of the Workmen's Compensation law imm......
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 39683
...Co. v. Smith, 34 Ga.App. 363(1), 129 S.E. 880; Gravitt v. Georgia Casualty Co., 158 Ga. 613(1), 123 S.E. 897; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 199 Ga. 179, 181, 33 S.E.2d 336. Cf. Hasty v. Carter, 105 Ga.App. 139(1), 141, 123 S.E.2d 563. It is true that there is language in some of these ......
-
Georgia Marine Salvage Co. v. Merritt
...v. Lattimore, 165 Ga. 501, 141 S.E. 195; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Morris, 68 Ga.App. 239, 22 S.E.2d 627; and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Morgan, 199 Ga. 179, 33 S.E.2d 336, it is not here determined what is a reasonable time as a matter of law. However, the application to review and cor......
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Jones
...Cas. Co. v. Smith, 34 Ga.App. 363(1), 129 S.E. 880; Gravitt v. Georgia Cas. Co., 158 Ga. 613(1), 123 S.E. 897; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 199 Ga. 179, 181, 33 S.E.2d 336. Cf. Hasty v. Carter, 105 Ga.App. 139(1), 141, 123 S.E.2d 563 . . "Much merit can be found in the position that the......