Georgia Insurance Defense Lawyer Blog

Posted by H. Lee Pruett

On reconsideration, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed itself in Adams v. State Farm, Case. No. A08A2315 (Ga. Ct. App., April 14, 2009), and ruled that an automobile liability carrier’s payment to satisfy a hospital lien reduces the amount of available coverage so as to increase the amount of uninsured motorist coverage. In its initial decision of February 17, 2009, the Court held that such a payment did not reduce the amount of available liability coverage. (See Levy & Pruett Blog Post dated March 2, 2009.) That initial decision, however, became the minority position of the dissent following the Court’s reconsideration of the case.

Continue reading " GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS RECONSIDERS UNINSURED MOTORIST CASE AND RULES THAT PAYMENT OF A HOSPITAL LIEN REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE LIABILITY COVERAGE " »

Posted by Levy & Pruett | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: INSURANCE - UNINSURED MOTORIST

Bookmark:

Posted by Susan J. Levy

In Roberts v. Nessim, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 428 (March 10, 2009), Plaintiff’s husband died a few days after Defendant physician ordered a nasogastric feeding tube to be placed in his stomach. Plaintiff filed suit against Dr. Nessim and the hospital, asserting professional negligence and fraud. In support of her claims of medical malpractice and in opposition to Dr. Nessim’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of her expert, Dr. Tidswell. Dr. Tidswell averred that Dr. Nessim breached the applicable standard of care when he:

1. failed to suspect that the decedent aspirated after he choked;

2. ordered the continued use of the feeding tube;

3. failed to ensure that Plaintiff’s decedent received a pulmonary consult he had ordered;

4. failed to diagnose and treat the aspiration;

5. failed to treat the decedent’s pneumonia; and

6. “as a result of the lack of treatment, Mr. Roberts died.”

Continue reading " GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS FINDS PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY BURDEN TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE " »

Posted by Levy & Pruett | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DEFENSE

Bookmark:

Posted by Jonathan A. Barash

Georgia courts have developed a four-part test to determine whether an owner of recreational property has acted “willfully or maliciously” in causing injuries to people using the property: First, the owner must have had knowledge that the property was being used for recreational purposes. Second, the owner must have had knowledge that a condition existed on the property involving unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm. Third, the condition must not have been apparent to those using the property. Finally, the owner must have chosen not to guard or warn, in disregard of the possible consequences. Significantly, in order to be found liable under this “willful or malicious” standard, the property owner must have “actual knowledge” of the hazard, rather than the much easier to prove “constructive knowledge” standard that exists in the usual premises liability situation. Further, under the Recreational Property Act, no affirmative duty to inspect the premises is imposed on the property owner.

This law strikes a balance by providing an incentive for property owners to make their land available to the public for recreational purposes, while still providing some remedy to injured parties for egregious conduct.

Posted by Levy & Pruett | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: PREMISES LIABILITY

Bookmark:

Posted by Jonathan A. Barash

With the increase in premises liability litigation over the past 50 years, it is understandable that property owners would be cautious about letting others enter their lands for recreational purposes. In an effort to encourage property owners in Georgia to make their land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes, Georgia, in 1965, enacted the Recreational Property Act which limits the liability of owners and occupiers of such property for injuries suffered by persons using the property. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq.

Continue reading " PREMISES LIABILITY AND GEORGIA’S RECREATIONAL PROPERTY ACT – Part 1 of a 2-Part Series " »

Posted by Levy & Pruett | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: PREMISES LIABILITY

Bookmark: