Lamb v. The Salvation Army

The trial court's order was, in effect, a mandatory permanent injunction requiring the appellant to provide details about prior settlements, defendants and insurance coverage in her underlying tort action and prohibiting her from settling any claims against those defendants or going to trial unless she complies with O.C.G.A. § 33-24-56.1.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this declaratory judgment action, Janella Lamb appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of a notice of appeal she previously had filed to challenge the court’s grant of an emergency motion filed by The Salvation Army. Lamb contends that the court’s order on the emergency motion was directly appealable and, therefore, that the court erred in finding that the order was interlocutory and in dismissing her notice of appeal therefrom due to her failure to comply with the interlocutory application requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 b. For the following reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing Lamb’s notice of appeal. Consequently, we reverse the court’s order and remand the case with direction. The record shows the following facts.1 In October 2006, while employed by The Salvation Army, Lamb was involved in an automobile collision. As a result of the collision, she incurred nearly $1 million in medical expenses. The Salvation Army paid Lamb’s medical expenses pursuant to the terms of its Employee Health Plan. In June 2007, Lamb filed a tort action against third parties who were involved in the collision.

In February 2009, The Salvation Army learned that Lamb had settled a claim against one of the defendants in the tort action for that defendant’s primary insurance limits of $1 million. The Salvation Army also learned that there was at least $4 million in additional, excess insurance coverage available in the tort action. Lamb did not notify The Salvation Army of the settlement with that defendant prior to consummating the settlement. The Salvation Army sent a letter to Lamb’s counsel requesting prior notice of any settlement in the underlying tort action, pursuant to OCGA § 33-24-56.1,2 but Lamb’s counsel insisted that Lamb was not required to provide such notice.

Lamb v. The Salvation Army

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report