Horton v. Dennis
325 Ga. App. 212
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2009 Raford and Virginia Horton sued after a 2008 collision in which Horton's vehicle was struck by a tractor‑trailer driven by Joseph Dennis (an employee of Horton Iron Works and under Putnam Group authority); Mr. Horton suffered severe orthopedic injuries and claimed a traumatic brain injury and pelvic nerve damage causing erectile dysfunction.
- Appellees defended liability through discovery and deposed the Hortons’ treating physicians; those doctors conceded limitations in linking cognitive deficits and erectile dysfunction definitively to the crash.
- On the eve of trial (Sept. 26, 2011) appellees stipulated to fault and liability for certain acute injuries (crushed pelvis, left knee/hip injuries, foot drop) but disputed proximate cause of the alleged brain injury and pelvic nerve damage.
- The Hortons amended to seek attorney fees under OCGA § 13‑6‑11, alleging appellees were stubbornly litigious and caused unnecessary trouble by denying liability until trial; the trial court bifurcated liability/damages and reserved fees for phase two.
- Jury awarded the Hortons substantial damages; appellees moved for judgment as a matter of law on the OCGA § 13‑6‑11 fee claim; the trial court granted the motion, finding a bona fide controversy existed on proximate cause and damages.
- Hortons appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the record showed genuine disputes about causation and damages and no evidence of wanton or baseless refusal to settle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellees were "stubbornly litigious" under OCGA § 13‑6‑11 justifying attorney fees | Hortons: appellees denied liability from answer through trial and had no bona fide controversy on fault, so fees are warranted | Appellees: there was a bona fide controversy over proximate cause of brain injury and erectile dysfunction and over damages, so no fees | Held: No fees — bona fide disputes on causation and damages precluded an award under § 13‑6‑11 |
| Whether a party’s late stipulation to liability, while contesting causation of certain injuries, can still bar fees | Hortons: late stipulation does not cure prior baseless litigation conduct | Appellees: stipulation on some injuries but continued dispute on others shows legitimate defense, not baseless litigation | Held: Stipulation to some liability did not eliminate bona fide controversy on other proximate‑cause issues; fees denied |
| Standard of review for granting JMOL on § 13‑6‑11 claim | Hortons: court should not remove fee issue from jury when disputes exist | Appellees: where no evidence supports fee award because bona fide controversy exists, JMOL appropriate | Held: De novo review; court correctly granted JMOL because record showed genuine disputes |
| Whether disputed damages alone preclude § 13‑6‑11 awards | Hortons: amount disputes are irrelevant if liability was never genuinely contested | Appellees: genuine dispute over amount and causation precludes fee award | Held: Mere dispute over amount (or causation) precludes award absent bad faith or baseless denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. Moon, 277 Ga. 375 (statutory authorization required for attorney fees)
- Anderson v. Cayes, 278 Ga. App. 592 (bona fide controversy precludes fee award absent wanton litigation)
- Dimambro Northend Assocs. v. Williams, 169 Ga. App. 219 (mere refusal to pay disputed claim not stubborn litigiousness)
- Driggers v. Campbell, 247 Ga. App. 300 (where bona fide controversy clearly exists, no evidence supports § 13‑6‑11 award)
- Daniel v. Smith, 266 Ga. App. 637 (defendant entitled to JMOL on fee claim if no evidence supports award)
- White v. Scott, 284 Ga. App. 87 (existence of bona fide dispute and reasonable defense precludes § 13‑6‑11 fees)
- Covington Square Assocs. v. Ingles Markets, 287 Ga. 445 (trial court cannot grant summary judgment for claimant on § 13‑6‑11 because trier of fact role)
- Universal Underwriters Group v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 297 Ga. App. 587 (no bona fide dispute existed where defendant had no defense to negligence or proximate cause; fee submission appropriate)