Santiago v. Safeway Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 28 June 1990 |
Docket Number | No. A90A0071,A90A0071 |
Citation | 196 Ga.App. 480,396 S.E.2d 506 |
Parties | SANTIAGO v. SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Glenville Haldi, for appellant.
Crim & Bassler, Harry W. Bassler, Philip G. Pompilio, for appellee.
Leon Van Gelderen, James D. Hollingsworth, Jason T. Schneider, amici curiae.
Plaintiff Dr. Lad Santiago provided health care to three patients injured in an automobile collision. Defendant Safeway Insurance Company was the no-fault carrier for the three injured parties. Safeway received notification that all three executed an agreement assigning their rights to insurance proceeds to Dr. Santiago. However, benefits were paid directly to the injured parties and Dr. Santiago was not paid. He filed suit against Safeway for the value of health care services provided to the insureds plus interest, and for punitive damages and expenses of litigation and attorney fees. The trial court granted summary judgment to Safeway and denied Dr. Santiago's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the assignments of benefits entitled him to payment plus interest. Plaintiff Santiago appeals.
1. "[An insurance] policy may be assignable or not assignable, as provided by its terms." OCGA § 33-24-17. In this case, the policy providing coverage contained language stating that the insured's "rights and duties under this policy may not be assigned without our written consent." Safeway did not consent to the assignments of benefits by the insureds to Dr. Santiago. However, the assignments did not assign the policy itself but only the benefits due the insureds after the loss had already occurred. The assignments did not in any way affect the risk insured by the policy. Cf. James v. Pa. Gen. Ins. Co., 167 Ga.App. 427, 306 S.E.2d 422 (1983) ( ).
(Citations omitted.) Georgia Co-Op. Fire Assn. v. Borchardt & Co., 123 Ga. 181, 183-184, 51 S.E. 429 (1905). Interest in the proceeds of a policy of insurance after a loss to the insured has occurred may be assigned just as any other chose in action. Canal Ins. Co. v. Savannah Bank, etc., Co., 181 Ga.App. 520(4), 352 S.E.2d 835 (1987); Pacific Ins. Co. v. R.L. Kimsey Cotton Co., 114 Ga.App. 411(3), 151 S.E.2d 541 (1966).
The law of other jurisdictions appears to recognize the right of an assignee of insurance benefits to bring an action to recover payment. 46 CJS Insurance § 1152 (1946). Interpreting Georgia law, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has held that a hospital, as assignee of benefits due under a policy of insurance, is entitled to maintain an action against a health insurance company for benefits due. See Hospital Auth. of Fulton County v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., etc., No. 1:87-CV-2305-MHS, unpublished slip op. (N.D.Ga. Aug. 14, 1989). We agree that where the insurance company had notice of the assignment, the health care provider may maintain an action for benefits due under the policy.
In both Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Peavy, 94 Ga.App. 31, 93 S.E.2d 580 (1956), and Vulcan Life Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 191 Ga.App. 79, 380 S.E.2d 751 (1989), the insurance companies defended an action by the insured on the ground that the insured's assignment to a health service provider vested the right to sue to recover benefits solely in the assignee. In both those cases the issue presented for review was whether the insured retained a right to maintain an action for insurance benefits if the insured had assigned the benefits to a health care provider. In both cases this court held that the insured still had standing to bring an action for payment of benefits. Thus, the statement contained in both those opinions that the assignment does not authorize the assignee to bring suit on the policy in its own name is dicta.
The Davenport opinion adopted the language of the earlier Peavy opinion, which recognized that a health care provider, which had been assigned benefits from an insurance policy, had a substantial interest in the benefits but that its interest could be asserted only in the name of the insured. However, Peavy was decided prior to the enactment of the Civil Practice Act. In support of its holding, the court in Peavy cited Jones v. Reed, 58 Ga.App. 72(2a), 197 S.E. 665 (1938), which was governed by § 81-1307 of the 1933 Code of Georgia allowing the named party in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Continental Cas. v. Diversified Industries
...to restrict the assignment of an insured's right to payment which has already accrued. See, e.g., Santiago v. Safeway Insurance Company, 196 Ga.App. 480, 396 S.E.2d 506 (1990); National Memorial Services, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 355 Pa. 155, 49 A.2d 382 (1946). Therefor......
-
Wehr Constructors, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Am.
...courts which have considered this identical provision have identified and applied this distinction. See, e.g., Santiago v. Safeway Ins. Co., 196 Ga.App. 480, 396 S.E.2d 506 (1990) (Applying substantially identical statute O.C.G.A. § 33–24–17, and holding “No right of the insurer being affec......
-
Millard Gutter Co. v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
...American Economy Ins. Co., No. CV020282069, 2005 WL 1155148 (Conn.Super. Apr. 26, 2005) (unpublished opinion); Santiago v. Safeway Ins. Co., 196 Ga.App. 480, 396 S.E.2d 506 (1990) ; Ginsburg v. Bull Dog Auto Fire Ins. Ass'n, 328 Ill. 571, 160 N.E. 145 (1928) ; Bolz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. ......
-
Bolz v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
...the parties cite to case law from other jurisdictions. Not cited by either party, however, is the case of Santiago v. Safeway Insurance Co., 196 Ga. App. 480, 396 S.E.2d 506 (1990). In Santiago, the Georgia court held that a health care provider could maintain an action for benefits when as......
-
Chapter 11
...(Fla. App. 2009; Continental Casualty Co. v. Ryan Inc. Eastern, 974 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2008). Georgia: Santiago v. Safeway Insurance Co., 196 Ga. App. 480, 396 S.E.2d 506 (1990). Illinois: Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Co., 962 N.E.2d 1042, 357 Ill. Dec. 141 (Ill......