Pasler v. Maryland Cas. Co., 36984
Decision Date | 13 February 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 36984,Nos. 1,2,36984,s. 1 |
Citation | 103 S.E.2d 90,97 Ga.App. 263 |
Parties | A. J. PASLER v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY et al |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The evidence demanded an award granting the claimant compensation and the superior court erred in affirming the award of the full board which denied compensation.
Anthony J. Pasler filed a claim with the State Board of Workmen's Compensation seeking compensation from Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., and its insurer, Maryland Casualty Company, for injuries received in an automobile collision on March 17, 1955. The single director awarded compensation and the employer and insurer appealed to the full board where an award denying compensation was entered. The claimant then appealed to the superior court where the award of the full board was affirmed, and it is to this judgment that he excepts.
Stewart & Hall, William Hall, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Burt DeRieux, Greene & Neely, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
The fact that the claimant was injured in an automobile collision while engaged in the business of the corporation and not because of any misconduct on his own part is undisputed, but it is contended, and has been contended throughout the litigation, that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, and that he is therefore not entitled to compensation.
The evidence shows conclusively that the claimant is the sole shareholder and president of the employing corporation and that in addition to the duties imposed upon him by the charter and bylaws of the corporation that he was also a salesman and performed other duties which would classify him as an employee within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The full board in reversing the award of the single director held that at the time of the collision the claimaint was engaged in the duties of the president of the corporation and not the duties of an employee, and that he was therefore not entitled to compensation.
Code, § 114-607 provides in part:
The policy of insurance issued by the insurer to the employing corporation read in part as follows: * * * and * * *.
The evidence adduced at the hearing showed without dispute that the claimant's compensation was included in the calculations on which the premium was based, and there was no conflict that at least some of the duties performed by the claimant, who was president of the corporation, were duties which would be customarily performed by a 'superintendent, foreman or workman.'
The policy did not provide that a person in the position of the claimant here would be covered by the policy 'only while such person is engaged in duties which are customarily the duties of a superintendent, foreman or workman' so that it would be necessary to determine whether, at the time of the injury, the claimant was engaged in the duties of a superintendent, foreman or workman.
Under Code, § 114-607, supra, the insurer was estopped from defending the present claim upon the ground that the claimant, the president of the employing corporation, was not an employee under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and it is now unnecessary to determine if the 'dual capacity' rule, which provides that certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lawrence v. Atlanta Door Co.
...135 Ga.App. 763, 219 S.E.2d 176 (1975); Ga. Cas., etc., Co. v. Rainwater, 132 Ga.App. 170, 207 S.E.2d 610 (1974); Pasler v. Md. Cas. Co., 97 Ga.App. 263, 103 S.E.2d 90 (1958); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Henry, 56 Ga.App. 868, 194 S.E. 430 (1937). See also Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Weeks, 1......
-
Sanders Truck Transp. Co. v. Napier, s. 43284
...corporate employer whose duties are those of management be counted; these are in the position of employers. But see Pasler v. Maryland Cas. Co., 97 Ga.App. 263, 103 S.E.2d 90; Home Indemnity Co. v. Hernlen, 100 Ga.App. 860, 112 S.E.2d There is no presumption that an employer has a sufficien......
-
Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Rainwater
...ordinarily exempt from its provisions shall not plead the exemption as a defense.' (Emphasis supplied.) Pasler v. Maryland Casualty Co., 97 Ga.App. 263, 264, 103 S.E.2d 90, 91. The law further provides that compensation shall be paid 'as if the employer and/or employee was subject to this T......
-
Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Cochran, 47108
...Ins. Co., 174 Ga. 525, 529, 163 S.E. 159; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Henry, 56 Ga.App. 868, 194 S.E. 430; Pasler v. Maryland Casualty Co., 97 Ga.App. 263, 264, 103 S.E.2d 90; New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Thompson, 100 Ga.App. 677, 680-681, 112 S.E.2d 273; Home Indemnity Co. v. Hernlen, 100......