Georgia Insurance Defense Lawyer Blog

Posted by Susan J. Levy

The simple, but perhaps unsatisfying, answer is “maybe.” We often get calls from individuals who have been cited for causing an accident or have some other reason to fear being sued after an accident. They have insurance, but wonder if they need their “own, personal” attorney to defend them.

Continue reading " DO I NEED “MY OWN” LAWYER IF I INJURE SOMEONE IN A CAR ACCIDENT? " »

Posted by Susan J. Levy

Almost the first question claims managers and adjusters ask me about a case is whether we have exposure to punitive damages. In the majority of cases, particularly absent a punitive damage exclusion in the insurance policy, the party most at risk in an auto or trucking case is the employer of the allegedly negligent driver. What follows is a brief summary of Georgia law on the imposition of punitive damages in negligent hiring, retention and entrustment cases.

Under Georgia law, plaintiffs must first prove the underlying tort in order to prevail on a punitive damages claim. Benefit Support, Inc. v. Hall Co., 281 Ga. App. 825 (2006). Both negligent hiring and entrustment claims require the plaintiff to prove that the driver was incompetent at the time the employer hired/entrusted the driver. Western Indus., Inc. v. Poole, 280 Ga. App. 378, 381-82 (2006); Smith v. Tommy Roberts Trucking Co., 209 Ga. App. 826, 828. However, the standard of proof for negligent entrustment and negligent hiring/retention are profoundly different.

Continue reading " CAN WE GET HIT WITH PUNITIVE DAMAGES? " »

Posted by H. Lee Pruett

In Cavalier Convenience, Inc. v. Sarvis, Case No. A10A0538 (Ga. Ct. App., July 9, 2010), the Georgia Court of Appeals looked to legislative intent to render a no-nonsense reading of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, which, as amended in 2005, ostensibly eliminated joint and several liability among multiple defendants. See [previous blogs on this statute]. The issue in Cavalier was whether the jury was obligated to apportion liability among the defendants when the plaintiff was without fault. The case arose out of vehicle accident in which Defendant Jeremi Bath collided with the plaintiff. In the subsequent lawsuit, the plaintiff also named as defendants two stores which allegedly sold alcohol to Bath prior to the accident. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion to preclude application of the apportionment statute because there was no allegation that the plaintiff was to any degree at fault.

Continue reading " GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS RULES APPORTIONMENT STATUTE APPLIES EVEN WHEN PLAINTIFF IS NOT AT FAULT " »