McGill v. American Trucking & Transportation, Ins.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3742
N.D. Ga.2015Background
- This case arises from a July 2011 motor vehicle accident involving a Tango Transport tractor-trailer driven by Annie Mitchell while in the scope of her employment.
- ATTIC provided liability insurance for the Tango-trailer unit under a contract with Tango.
- Plaintiff sues in a diversity setting; ATTIC seeks summary judgment to avoid direct action under Georgia law.
- Georgia direct action statutes permit joinder of carrier and insurer when a motor carrier causes actionable injuries; Georgia law requires interpretation of the insurance contract.
- Louisiana law governs the interpretation of the underlying insurance contract since the policy was delivered there, including determining whether the insurer is primary or excess.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATTIC may be joined under Georgia direct action statutes | Plaintiff contends ATTIC is subject to direct action because Tango is a motor carrier and ATTIC insured the relevant unit. | ATTIC argues it should not be subject to direct action as a (potential) excess or non-carrier due to self-insured retention and policy structure. | ATTIC is not entitled to summary judgment on direct action grounds; joinder remains appropriate. |
| Whether ATTIC may withdraw from the case after admitting liability | If ATTIC admits liability, its continued joinder should be prejudicial and unnecessary. | ATTIC would be prejudiced by a forced continued joinder despite liability admission. | An insurer joined under direct action statutes may not unilaterally withdraw; needs to remain in case. |
| Whether ATTIC is an excess insurer not subject to direct action | Deductible payments should render ATTIC an excess insurer not subject to direct action. | Deductible is a self-insured retention under Louisiana contract terms and does not convert ATTIC to excess. | Under Louisiana law, ATTIC is Tango’s primary insurer; deductible does not create an excess-insurer status. |
| Which state's law governs interpretation of the contract and insurer status | Georgia law governs direct action analysis; contract interpreted for insurer status. | Louisiana law governs contract interpretation since policy delivered there. | Louisiana law governs the contract interpretation; ATTIC remains a primary insurer under that contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartford Ins. Co. v. Henderson & Son, Inc., 258 Ga. 493, 371 S.E.2d 401 (Ga. 1988) (direct action framework and exceptions under Georgia law)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Freight Delivery Service, Inc., 133 Ga.App. 92, 210 S.E.2d 42 (Ga. App. 1974) (early direct action framework and carrier-insurer joinder)
- Andrews v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 262 Ga. 476, 421 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1992) (insurer’s role in direct action and third-party liability context)
- Sapp v. Canal Ins. Co., 288 Ga. 681, 706 S.E.2d 644 (Ga. 2011) (direct action elements and prima facie showing)
- Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 842 F.Supp.2d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2012) (choice-of-law and lex loci contractus considerations in insurance)
- Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 135 F.3d 750, 752 (11th Cir. 1998) (lex loci contractus and contract delivery affecting applicable law)