Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Judge in U-Haul Case
"After a thorough review of the record and the relevant statutory provisions, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the U-Haul defendants' motion to dismiss because the declaratory judgment action was improper. Accordingly, we reverse,” Judge Todd Markle wrote.
February 25, 2019 at 04:27 PM
4 minute read
The Georgia Court of Appeals has reversed a trial judge's ruling holding U-Haul liable for the full extent of the damages in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of a man who was hit by a rented truck.
“After a thorough review of the record and the relevant statutory provisions, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the U-Haul defendants' motion to dismiss because the declaratory judgment action was improper. Accordingly, we reverse,” Judge Todd Markle wrote for a unanimous panel that included Presiding Judge Chris McFadden and Judge Brian Rickman. The decision was released Friday.
Markle replaced Judge Billy Ray, who heard the oral arguments on his last day at work there, having just been confirmed by the U.S. Senate as President Donald Trump's appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Oral arguments are live-streamed and archived on the court's website.
The decision reverses Paulding County Superior Court Judge Thomas Lyles, who had denied U-Haul's motion to dismiss the case and granted judgment on the pleadings for the other side. U-Haul's appellate counsel, Laurie Webb Daniel of Holland & Knight, told the court during oral arguments last October that the trial court's ruling would open the company to “unlimited” exposure. She repeated the word “unlimited” for effect. “It's not sensible,” Daniel said. “It's not fair.”
Arguing for the other side, John Salter of the Barnes Law Group in Marietta told the panel in October that it would not be fair to overturn the ruling. Salter also argued that the court has plenty of precedent to uphold the ruling and cited many cases, although he and Daniel disagreed on what those cases mean.
The reversal denies compensation to the family of Charles Rutland, who died when a man driving a U-Haul truck while “allegedly high on meth” crossed the center line and caused a crash, Salter said. The driver had no insurance. His girlfriend had rented the truck and was offered no insurance at the time, according to the Barnes brief.
Salter was accompanied by his partner, former Gov. Roy Barnes, and their co-counsel, former Georgia House Speaker Glenn Richardson, now a partner with Talley, Richardson & Cable in Dallas.
Salter argued that U-Haul's self-insurance amounts to no insurance. He said a company cannot enjoy the benefit of minimizing liability as a self-insurer without first qualifying a self-insurance plan with the Georgia Department of Insurance, which U-Haul had not done prior to the wreck. “What they are saying is, 'We're going to stick you with the statutory minimums, and we're going to walk away.' They're the Gingerbread Man, and they can't be touched,” Salter said. “Our clients have had someone taken away from them, and there is no other coverage available.”
The lawsuit was filed by Rutland's widow, Margaret Rutland.
“Here, Rutland sought a declaratory judgment that the U-Haul defendants would be liable for the full extent of any judgment received in the underlying wrongful death case.” Markle said. “Thus, our focus is on Rutland's position and status with regard to the U-Haul defendants at the time the complaint was filed.”
Markle said that, to establish a sufficient legal interest, Rutland would have to show her rights are in direct jeopardy.
“It is well established that a plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory relief when he or she has only a generalized economic interest that is contingent upon future events because such interests are not legally protectable interests,” Markle said. He added that, as a general rule, a party has no standing to bring a direct action against a defendant's insurance company “unless the plaintiff has obtained a judgment against the defendant that remains unsatisfied.”
Salter and Daniel were unavailable for immediate comment Monday.
Richardson said Rutland's legal team will return to court to seek judgment against the driver of the truck and try again to hold U-Haul responsible.
“We'll go in front of a jury and find out what people in Paulding think about drivers on meth going out killing people,” Richardson said. “U-haul thumbed their nose at Georgia's insurance laws and got caught. We intend for U-Haul to pay for whatever judgment is rendered.”
The case is U-Haul v. Rutland, No. A18A2037.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInsurer Not Required to Cover $29M Wrongful Death Judgment, Appeals Court Rules
Trying to Reason With Hurricane Season: Mediating First Party Property Insurance Claims
'I Thank You': Attorney Leverages Daily Report Article to Turn $42K Offer Into $600K Settlement
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250