Grange Indemnity Insurance Company v. Beavex, Inc.
342 Ga. App. 601
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On March 17, 2014, Pathe Sarr, while making a delivery arranged through BeavEx, collided with the Morrises' vehicle; the Morrises sued Sarr and BeavEx.
- BeavEx moved for summary judgment asserting Sarr was an independent contractor under a written owner/operator contract dated August 7, 2012.
- The contract expressly labeled Sarr an independent owner/operator, required him to supply his own vehicle, insurance, pay operating costs, accept 1099 tax treatment, and excluded him from BeavEx benefits.
- Some operational requirements existed: wearing customer-mandated ID/shirts, following manifest pickup/delivery times, vehicle inspections, providing driving records, and reporting accidents to BeavEx.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for BeavEx; Grange Indemnity (insurer for the Morrises) appealed arguing Sarr was an employee or a statutory employee under the FMCSR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sarr was an employee vs independent contractor | The contract terms and operational requirements show BeavEx controlled time, manner, and method, creating a factual dispute precluding summary judgment | The written contract and allocation of business risks and tax treatment show independent-contractor status; customer-imposed requirements do not show BeavEx control over means | Court affirmed that the contract and facts show independent-contractor relationship; reserved general supervisory checks did not create employee status |
| Whether Sarr was a statutory employee under FMCSR | FMCSR defines employers/employees for safety regs; Sarr's work affected safety and therefore he should be a statutory employee | FMCSR applies only to interstate commerce and commercial motor vehicles meeting weight/passenger thresholds; Sarr drove a Honda Civic on local routes, so regs do not apply | Court held FMCSR inapplicable — vehicle not a "commercial motor vehicle" and routes were not shown to affect interstate commerce |
Key Cases Cited
- Larmon v. CCR Enterprises, 285 Ga. App. 594 (presumption that parties’ designation of independent contractor stands unless employer assumed control)
- McLaine v. McLeod, 291 Ga. App. 335 (discussion of control test for employee vs independent contractor)
- Bentley v. Jones, 48 Ga. App. 587 (general supervisory control that does not direct means of work does not destroy independent-contractor status)