Georgia Insurance Defense Lawyer Blog

Posted by H. Lee Pruett

Hard cases make bad law, as the saying goes. The Georgia Court of Appeals recently resisted that outcome, however, in a dram shop case where an intoxicated guest left the defendant’s home, ran a red light and struck another car, killing a mother and injuring her minor son. In Shin v. Estate of Camacho, Case No. A10A0244 (Ga. Ct. App., January 21, 2010), the Court held that, because the plaintiff had failed to show the defendant host served alcohol to the guest after he became noticeably intoxicated, the host was not liable for the subsequent actions of the guest.

Continue reading " GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS STRICTLY CONSTRUES DRAM SHOP ACT TO ABSOLVE HOST FOR INTOXICATED GUEST'S AUTO ACCIDENT " »

Posted by Jonathan A. Barash

Last year we reported on Condra v. Atlanta Orthopaedic Group, 285 Ga. 667, 681 S.E.2d 152 (2009), in which the Georgia Supreme Court overruled prior case law prohibiting the admission of evidence of an expert witness’s personal medical practices. Prior to Condra evidence of an expert’s own practice was deemed irrelevant on the grounds that the standard of care is that which is employed by the medical profession generally, not what one individual doctor thought was advisable and would have done under the circumstance.

Continue reading " CONDRA RULE ON EXPERT'S PERSONAL PRACTICE EVIDENCE EXTENDED TO TREATING PHYSICIANS " »

Posted by Susan J. Levy

Generally, a party may not bring a direct action against another party’s liability insurer. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Henderson & Son, 258 Ga. 493 (1988). In that case, the Georgia Supreme Court held that “the general rule is that because there is no privity of contract, a party may not bring a direct action against the liability insurer of the party who allegedly caused the damage unless there was an unsatisfied judgment against the insured or it is specifically permitted either by statute or provision in the policy.”

Continue reading " GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT AN EXCESS INSURER IS NOT SUBJECT TO SUIT UNDER THE DIRECT ACTION STATUTE " »