Companion Property & Cas. Group v. Tutt Contracting Inc.

The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee since there was conflicting evidence which created an issue of fact.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this breach-of-contract action to recover a portion of a workers’ compensation insurance premium, plaintiff Companion Property and Casualty Group the “insurance company” appeals the grant of summary judgment to defendant Tutt Contracting, Inc. the “employer” and the denial of summary judgment to itself. Even though the employer paid sufficient funds to cover the entire premium of the policy at issue, the insurance company argues that the undisputed evidence showed that the payment was actually for a second policy between the parties. We rule that the evidence was conflicting and created an issue of fact as to which policy the payment was to be credited, and we therefore reverse that portion of the judgment granting summary judgment to the employer. The denial of summary judgment to the insurance company is affirmed. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp .1

So viewed, the evidence shows that after receiving the employer’s initial $3,887 premium payment, the insurance company issued a worker’s compensation policy to the employer for the year from November 23, 2006 to November 23, 2007. The policy provided that the final amount of the premium would be determined after the policy’s term had expired, which amount would be calculated based on an audit of the employer’s records from that year. The policy was identified by a unique number, consisting of a customer number assigned to the employer by the insurance company followed by the numbers “00.” These latter numbers represented that this was the first year the insurance company had insured this employer.

Companion Property & Cas. Group v. Tutt Contracting Inc.

The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee since there was conflicting evidence which created an issue of fact.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report