Canal Ins. Co. v. Pro Search

Canal Insurance Company appeals from the trial court’s grant of Pro Search and Pro Temps’s Pro Search motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that Canal’s claim for amounts due under its contract to provide Worker’s Compensation Insurance to Pro Search was barred by the statute of limitation. Because the law in Georgia is that the statute of limitation begins to run at the time contemplated by the contract, which in this case is 30 days after notice was sent of the amount due, we reverse. “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.” Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp ., 226 Ga. App. 459 1 486 SE2d 684 1997. We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in favor of the nonmovant. Id.

Although Canal’s brief on appeal is lacking and fails to provide any record cites whatsoever, it appears that the underlying facts in this case are largely undisputed.1 The record shows that Canal Insurance Company and Pro Search contracted for Canal to provide worker’s compensation insurance for Pro Search beginning on June 9, 1997. The policy at issue provided that Canal would pay the applicable $2500 deductible on each claim, and would in turn bill Pro Search for reimbursement. Canal billed Pro Search $42,755.54 on November 25, 2002. Pro Search refused to pay and Canal sued. Pro Search moved for summary judgment, contending that the statute of limitation had run on the claim. The trial court granted the motion and this appeal followed.