Wages v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49230
| Decision Date | 09 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 49230,No. 2,49230,2 |
| Citation | 208 S.E.2d 1,132 Ga.App. 79 |
| Parties | Tom M. WAGES v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. It is the public policy in this state that an insurer of a co-defendant has the right to seek contribution from the plaintiff's liability insurer which provides uninsured motorist coverage to an uninsured co-defendant.
2. While the co-defendant's insurer's transfer of the judgments to its insured was not necessary in order to enforce the right to contribution, it would not preclude the enforcement of such right.
This case arose out of a motor vehicle collision involving a 1966 Ford automobile driven by George C. Harrison (Harrison), a 1970 Pontiac operated by Janie M. Black and owned by her husband, Billy Black, and an ambulance driven by James Alton Bennett and owned by Tom M. Wages, individually and d/b/a Tom M. Wages Oaklawn Chapel.
As a result of the injuries and damages sustained by Harrison in the collision, Harrison and his wife filed suit in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, against Bennett, Wages, individually and d/b/a Tom M. Wages Oaklawn Chapel, and Mr. and Mrs. Black. The cases came on for trial and resulted in jury verdicts and judgments in favor of plaintiff Mr. Harrison of $9,000, and plaintiff Mrs. Harrison of $1,000. The verdict and judgment in each case were against all defendants jointly and severally.
At the time of the collision: The Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover) had issued a policy of liability insurance on the ambulance owned by Wages and driven by Bennett. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) had issued a policy of liability insurance on the vehicle owned and driven by plaintiff Mr. Harrison. The State Farm policy contained the standard statutory provision regarding uninsured motorist protection. The 1970 Pontiac owned by Mr. Black and driven by Mrs. Black, was an uninsured vehicle. There is no question presented of initial coverage under the provisions of the uninsured motorist clause of the State Farm policy. State Farm participated in the trial of the cases by and through its attorney acting as counsel for defendants Janie M. Black and Billy Black. However, it was not a party to either suit, and no verdict or judgment was rendered against it.
Subsequently, the respective judgments in favor of Mr. Harrison ($9,000) and Mrs. Harrison ($1,000) were transferred for valuable consideration to Wages, individually and d/b/a Tom M. Wages Oaklawn Chapel. The entire consideration for the transfers of judgments was paid by Hanover. Wages, individually and d/b/a Tom M. Wages Oaklawn Chapel and as transferee of Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, brought this action against State Farm, seeking judgment for $10,000 (the total of the two judgments transferred). Mrs. Black and Mr. Black (the uninsured motorist) are not parties to this litigation, and no effort has been made by Wages or Hanover to recover any portion of the verdict and judgment from them. Also, the coverage afforded by the Hanover policy to Wages was in excess of the aggregate amount of the two judgments ($10,000).
Based on the foregoing facts, which were stipulated by the parties, motions for summary judgment were filed by the plaintiff and the defendant. 1 The trial judge denied the plaintiff's motion and granted that of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the order on both motions after obtaining a certificate for immediate review on the order denying his motion for summary judgment.
N. Forest Montet, Atlanta, for appellant.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Eugene G. Partain, John D. Lowery, Atlanta, for appellee.
1. Succinctly stated, the issue presented is, whether an insured co-defendant (Wages) with sufficient liability insurance to satisfy judgments rendered in favor of the plaintiffs (Harrisons) against said insured co-defendant (Wages) and an uninsured motorist (Black), is entitled to recover contribution and indemnification from the plaintiff's uninsured motorist carrier (State Farm). Our research indicates this to be an issue of first impression in Georgia.
There appears to be a division of opinion in jurisdictions where this issue has previously arisen.
One view is that the intent of the uninsured motorist coverage statute and of conforming policy provisions, is not to benefit the uninsured driver, but rather to protect the insured driver, and actions thereunder are contractual in nature rather than delictual. Courts holding this view have denied the right of an insurance company paying the loss, to seek contribution from the uninsured motorist carrier of the injured person. Gautreaux v. Pierre (La.App.) 254 So.2d 476; Hobbs v. Buckeye Union Cas. Co., 212 F.Supp. 349 (W.D.Va.); 7 Blashfield, Automobile Law and Practice, (3rd Ed.) § 274.4, p. 55.
Another view is that the purpose of providing for uninsured motorist protection is to afford the public generally the same protection that it would have had if the uninsured motorist had carried the minimum limits of public liability coverage. Chandler v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co., 342 F.2d 420 (5 Cir.).
Under our uninsured motorist law, the insurer is obligated to pay the insured 'all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle.' Code Ann. § 56-407.1 (). This provision is similar to that contained in the statutes of our sister states which have differing interpretations of its meaning.
The public policy of this state is created by our Constitution, laws and judicial decisions. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Durden, 9 Ga.App. 797(3),72 S.E. 295; Bishop v. Act-O-Lane Gas Service Co., 91 Ga.App. 154, 165, 85 S.E.2d 169. Thus, we must determine the purpose of Georgia's uninsured motorist statute. In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 226 Ga. 710, 714, 177 S.E.2d 257, 260, the Supreme Court, speaking through then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Grice, stated, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arrow Exterminators, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins.
...only "where one has paid more than his share of the common burden which all are equally bound to bear." Wages v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 132 Ga.App. 79, 83, 208 S.E.2d 1 (1974). "[I]f two insurance companies are obligated to pay a loss and one company pays the entire loss or more th......
-
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Cobb County, Ga., Civ. A. No. C80-1411A.
...from another who is jointly liable with him. Citing Waddy v. Davis, 149 Ga. App. 308, 312, 254 S.E.2d 465 (1979), Wages v. State Farm, 132 Ga.App. 79, 83, 208 S.E.2d 1 (1974), and Goldhill v. Kramer, 122 Ga.App. 39, 40, 176 S.E.2d 232 (1970), the plaintiff argues that the right to contribut......
-
Hinton v. Interstate Guar. Ins. Co.
...the same amount of coverage under a public liability policy issued in his name." (Emphasis supplied.) Wages v. State Farm, etc., Ins. Co., 132 Ga.App. 79, 83, 208 S.E.2d 1 (1974). As uninsured motorist provisions are a part of the actual liability policy which is governed by OCGA § 33-34-3,......
-
Hinton v. Interstate Guar. Ins. Co.
...are remedial in nature and must be broadly construed to accomplish the legislative purpose. Id. See Wages v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 132 Ga.App. 79, 208 S.E.2d 1 (1974); see also McDaniel v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 205 Va. 815, 139 S.E.2d 806 (1965). Limiting the definit......