Watts v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A1103,A94A1103 |
| Parties | WATTS v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Dozier, Akin, Lee & Graham, L.Z. Dozier, Jr., Macon, for appellant.
Bonnie K. Cole, Macon, for appellee.
Ernestine Watts, a resident of Bibb County, brought suit against Ernestine Daniel, a California resident, in the State Court of Bibb County, seeking recovery for damages incurred in an automobile accident that occurred in California. Daniel was served by publication. Watts also served her uninsured motorist insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company, through its registered agent. Allstate answered in its own name, admitting that Watts was its insured, but denying the jurisdiction of the trial court. Allstate subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted.
Watts contends the trial court erred in granting Allstate's motion to dismiss. She argues that service on Daniel by publication was proper because of certain language in OCGA § 33-7-11(e) providing for service by publication upon out-of-state defendants. She further argues that under Douglas v. Woon, 205 Ga.App. 355, 356(1), 422 S.E.2d 61 (1992) and Norman v. Daniels, 142 Ga.App. 456(1), 236 S.E.2d 121 (1977), it was improper to dismiss the action when service had been perfected against the UM carrier.
Watts misunderstands the statute and the holdings in these cases. Subsection (e) of OCGA § 33-7-11 does not create new rights for plaintiffs to sue uninsured motorists; it merely provides procedures whereby plaintiffs may recover their losses from their own insurers subject to rights granted under other laws. Houston v. Doe, 136 Ga.App. 583, 584(1), 222 S.E.2d 131 (1975). OCGA § 33-7-11(e) provides that where the owner or operator of a vehicle causing injury or damage is known but resides out of this state, a judge may grant an order for service by publication and a copy of the action shall be served upon the UM carrier. Implicit in this statute is that it applies only where jurisdiction is otherwise proper in Georgia.
As pointed out by Allstate, ever since Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. (5 Otto) 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877), it has been axiomatic that plaintiffs are not free to bring suit wherever they choose. With the expansion of commerce in this country and the population's increasing mobility, the states' authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents has been significantly expanded. Intl. Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Marbury v. Marbury, 256 Ga. 651, 654-655, 352 S.E.2d 564 (1987). However, the power of state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil actions must always be tested against the guarantees of fairness and justice embodied in the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions. A defendant may not be called upon to defend himself in a foreign tribunal unless he has done some act by which he avails himself of the benefits and protections of that jurisdiction's laws. Id.
Georgia courts may exercise jurisdiction over Georgia residents, of course. Their jurisdiction also extends to "[a]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoesch America, Inc. v. Dai Yang Metal Co., Ltd.
...by which he avails himself of the benefits and protections of that jurisdiction's laws." (Citations omitted.) Watts v. Allstate Ins. Co., 214 Ga.App. 462, 463, 448 S.E.2d 55 (1994). In Baldwin v. Iowa State, etc., Assoc., the United States Supreme Court held that a resident of Iowa who was ......
-
Classic Commercial Servs., Inc. v. Baldwin
...which establishes the date the action is commenced.") (citations and punctuation omitted). See generally Watts v. Allstate Ins. Co., 214 Ga.App. 462, 463, 448 S.E.2d 55 (1994)("Georgia courts may exercise jurisdiction over Georgia residents[.]"). Baldwin, who had the burden of showing that ......
-
Stanton v. Harris
...in North Carolina at issue in this litigation was not related to her visit to the campground. See, e. g., Watts v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 214 Ga. App. 462, 462, 448 S.E.2d 55 (1994) (Georgia resident could not sue California resident for an automobile accident that occurred in California). Com......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Duncan
...and Duncan's action against Allstate may proceed. Judgments reversed. BEASLEY, C.J., and RUFFIN, J., concur. 1 Watts v. Allstate Ins. Co., 214 Ga.App. 462, 448 S.E.2d 55 (1994) is distinguishable, as it involved a known uninsured tortfeasor rather than a John ...