Georgia Insurance Defense Lawyer Blog

Posted by Susan J. Levy

Enacted in 2005, O.C.G.A. § 24-6-67.1 provides the criteria for determining whether an expert witness will be allowed to testify in a civil case. This statute provides in pertinent part:

A witness qualified as an expert, based on training, education, experience etc., may testify only if:
(1) The testimony rests on sufficient facts or data which are or will be admitted into evidence at the hearing or trial;
(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(3) The expert witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
O.C.G.A. § 26-6-67.1(b).

Continue reading " NEW ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE BOLSTERS DAUBERT: A POWERFUL TOOL IN ANY GEORGIA INSURANCE DEFENSE ATTORNEY’S TOOLBOX - Part 1 of a 3-Part Series " »

Posted by Levy & Pruett | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DAUBERT

Bookmark:

Posted by H. Lee Pruett

A recent Georgia case attests to the importance of looking to the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint in determining potential coverage and the insurance company’s duty to defend a lawsuit. In Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kim, Case No. A08A1063 (Ga. Ct. App., Nov. 14, 2008), Chong Yang sued Yong Kim for hitting Yang in the face with an ice cream scoop in a DeKalb County karaoke bar. Yang’s initial complaint alleged an intentional assault and battery. Yang later amended the complaint to delete all factual allegations in the initial complaint and to allege that Kim negligently threw the ice cream scoop in Yang’s direction. Yang sought compensatory and punitive damages. Nationwide Insurance Company insured Kim under a homeowner’s policy. Nationwide entered into a defense of Kim under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a judgment of non-coverage based on the intentional act exclusion in the policy.

Continue reading " IN LAWSUIT ARISING OUT OF KARAOKE BAR INCIDENT, GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS RULES INTENTIONAL ACT EXCLUSION INAPPLICABLE AND INSURANCE COMPANY MUST DEFEND ITS INSURED " »

Posted by Levy & Pruett | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: INSURANCE COVERAGE

Bookmark:

Posted by Susan J. Levy

In a blow to the defense bar, the Georgia Supreme Court recently held, in a unanimous Opinion reversing the Georgia Court of Appeals, that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), prohibits defense counsel from interviewing Plaintiff's treating physicians without specific notice. Moreland v. Austin, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 864 (November 3, 2008).

Continue reading " GEORGIA SUPREME COURT RESTRICTS DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ACCESS TO PLAINTIFF'S TREATING PHYSICIANS " »

Posted by Levy & Pruett | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DEFENSE

Bookmark:

Posted by Susan J. Levy

Most jurisdictions agree that a first party insurer reasonably handling an insured’s claim will not be liable for bad faith as long as it has a “legitimate, arguable or fairly debatable reason for denying (or delaying payment) of a claim.” Patrick J. Brighton and Ronald J. Clark, Preventive Measures to Avoid or Minimize Bad Faith Risks, DRI Presentation - Insurance Bad Faith (June, 2007).

Continue reading " IN GEORGIA, INSURERS' REASONABLE DENIAL OF COVERAGE VITIATES BAD FAITH CLAIM " »

Posted by Levy & Pruett | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: INSURANCE - BAD FAITH

Bookmark:

Posted by Susan J. Levy

An employer may be liable for negligent hiring/retention when the employer knew or in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, the employee was unsuited for the particular employment. Western Indus., Inc. v. Poole, 280 Ga. App. 378 (2006) (emphasis added). The question of whether the employee is suited for employment is resolved by examining the particular job in question. For example, in CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pyramid Stone Indus., Inc., 2008 U. S. App. LEXIS 20001 (11th Cir. 2008), the Court held that an employee was suitable for quarry work given his prior experience operating heavy equipment, despite a prior criminal history of violent crime. Id. To recover punitive damages for the employer’s negligent hiring/retention, the plaintiff must show the employer had actual knowledge “of numerous and serious violations on its driver's record, or, at the very least, . . . the employer has flouted a legal duty to check a record showing such violations.” Western Indus., Inc., 280 Ga. App. at 380.

Continue reading " A PRIMER ON EMPLOYER LIABILITY IN GEORGIA: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, AND ENTRUSTMENT " »

Posted by Levy & Pruett | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: EMPLOYER LIABILITY , VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Bookmark: