Estate of Pitts v. City of Atlanta

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the breach of contract claim brought by an estate whose decedent died while working on a construction project when he was struck by a vehicle driven by an employee of a trucking sub-subcontractor, as the undisputed evidence showed that the defendants breached their contractual duties by allowing the trucking company to work on the project without the required minimum insurance coverage.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On June 14, 2007, Mack Pitts was killed while working on a construction project at the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, when he was struck by a vehicle driven by an employee of A&G Trucking, Inc. In an action separate from the present case, Pitts’s estate through its administratrix and his minor children through their mothers collectively, “the Estate” obtained a wrongful death judgment against A&G Trucking and its driver. That judgment exceeded the limits of A&G Trucking’s automobile liability insurance coverage. The Estate brought the present, separate action against the City of Atlanta “the City” and various construction companies associated with the construction project. In the present action the Estate asserts that all of the defendants breached a contractual duty to require that A&G Trucking carry a minimum of $10 million in automobile liability insurance to work on the project. As to the City, the Estate also alleges breach of a ministerial duty to require A&G Trucking to carry insurance in that amount.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied summary judgment to the Estate and granted summary judgment to the City and the various construction company defendants on the ground that the Estate lacked standing to enforce the contractual minimum insurance requirement because Pitts had not been a third-party beneficiary to the contracts setting forth that requirement. The court also ruled on motions for summary judgment related to claims between certain of the construction company defendants; those rulings are not at issue in this appeal.

Estate of Pitts v. City of Atlanta

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report