Estate of Pitts v. City of Atlanta
312 Ga. App. 599
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Pitts was killed on a City of Atlanta construction project when struck by a vehicle operated by A&G Trucking, Inc.
- The Estate obtained a wrongful death judgment against A&G Trucking, which exceeded that insurer’s policy limits.
- The Estate sued the City and construction defendants, alleging they breached contractual minimum insurance obligations of $10 million for work on the project.
- Main Contract and Subcontract incorporated an Owner’s Controlled Insurance Program providing $10,000,000 automobile liability coverage, with subcontractors bound to meet those requirements.
- A&G Trucking was engaged for trucking/hauling; undisputedly, it did not have the $10 million coverage when it worked on the project.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the City/defendants, ruling Pitts lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that exclusive remedy under Workers’ Compensation Act barred the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| standing of Pitts’s Estate | Pitts was a third-party beneficiary of the Main Contract and Subcontract. | Pitts was not a named beneficiary and the Estate lacked standing. | Estate had standing as third-party beneficiary; WC Act does not bar. |
| exclusive remedy bar | Workers’ Compensation Act bars only certain remedies; breach of contract damages are allowed. | Exclusive remedy precludes claims for this injury. | Act does not bar contract damages here; not applicable to the breach of contract claim. |
| contractor status of A&G Trucking | A&G Trucking is a subcontractor obligated to carry $10,000,000 insurance. | A&G Trucking is a supplier exempt from the minimum insurance requirement. | A&G Trucking satisfies ‘subcontractor’ under the contracts; breached by working without minimum coverage. |
| damages | Breach caused injury in the form of insufficient insurance coverage to satisfy potential judgments. | No damages shown beyond the breach. | Undisputed evidence shows damages; estate was harmed by breach. |
| ministerial duty claim against City | City owed a separate private duty to ensure insurance levels. | No independent private duty exists apart from the contract. | No independent private duty; City’s summary judgment affirmed on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutto v. CACV of Colo., 308 Ga. App. 469 (Ga. App. 2011) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Wilks v. Overall Constr., 296 Ga. App. 410 (Ga. App. 2009) (damages; contract breach elements; damages quotations)
- Superb Carpet Mills v. Thomason, 183 Ga. App. 554 (Ga. App. 1987) (injury definition; workers’ comp applicable analysis)
- Plantation Pipe Line Co. v. 3-D Excavators, 160 Ga. App. 756 (Ga. App. 1981) (third-party beneficiary; contract intended to benefit)
- Duke Galish, LLC v. Manton, 308 Ga. App. 316 (Ga. App. 2011) (contract ambiguity; intention of parties)
- Marvel Enterprises v. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, 271 Ga. App. 607 (Ga. App. 2005) (beneficiary analysis; contract language controlling)
- City of Atlanta v. Atlantic Realty Co., 205 Ga. App. 1 (Ga. App. 1992) (beneficiary status when contract specifies insurance benefit)
- Crisp Regional Hosp. v. Oliver, 275 Ga. App. 578 (Ga. App. 2005) (private duties arising from contract; insurance context)
- Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Stevens, 130 Ga. App. 363 (Ga. App. 1973) (private duties and contract interplay)