State Farm appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion to enter judgment on a cross-claim, based on its statutory subrogation right as an uninsured motorist carrier.1 Defendant Miller’s car was struck from behind by a “John Doe” driver, causing his vehicle to collide with plaintiff Wright’s vehicle. When Wright sued Miller to recover for injuries sustained in the accident, she also served her uninsured motorist UM carrier, appellant State Farm. State Farm answered in its own name and cross-claimed against Miller pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11d. Thus State Farm participated as an underinsurance motorist carrier, covering damages above Miller’s liability insurance coverage of $25,000, and as an uninsured motorist carrier because of “John Doe’s” involvement. The jury awarded Wright a total of $48,856.2 The next day, Miller objected to the inclusion of a statement regarding the cross-claim on the judgment. Counsel met in chambers at which time State Farm requested the trial court enter judgment on the cross-claim.3 Following the judge’s reservation of ruling, State Farm filed a motion to set aside the judgment and oral argument was granted. The trial court ultimately denied State Farm’s motion to set aside the judgment and the motion to enter judgment on the cross-claim, concluding that State Farm waived its cross-claim for subrogation by not pursuing it during trial. State Farm satisfied its portion of the judgment in the amount of $24,359.44.4 On appeal, State Farm contends: 1 the trial judge erred in ruling that State Farm waived its right to the cross-claim because it did not reassert the cross-claim prior to the rendering of judgment, 2 the cross-claim is valid because it was asserted in the State Farm’s answer and preserved in the pre-trial order, and 3 the cross-claim could not be asserted during the course of the trial because it would lead to impermissible evidence and the claim did not ripen until damages were determined by the jury. We reverse and remand with direction to enter judgment on the cross-claim.
1. “The plain legal error standard of review applies, where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact, that there was no factual dispute, or that there was no discretion, so that the issue for review was whether the trial court made a plain legal error.”5 State Farm argues that it never waived its right to the cross-claim.
