McReynolds v. Krebs
307 Ga. App. 330
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Krebs sued McReynolds and GM for injuries from a 2002 Trailblazer crash on I-75; McReynolds asserted a cross-claim against GM for set-off and contribution.
- GM settled with Krebs in December 2006; terms included a confidentiality provision.
- McReynolds urged discovery of the GM settlement to support contribution or set-off and argued apportionment under OCGA § 51-12-33.
- Trial court granted GM’s motion to dismiss the cross-claim, ruling that apportionment controlled and set-off/contribution were abolished by the Tort Reform Act of 2005.
- McReynolds proceeded to trial without presenting evidence of GM’s fault; jury awarded Krebs over $1.246 million against McReynolds only.
- On appeal, McReynolds challenges the dismissal of GM, evidentiary rulings on cross-examination, any apportionment, and the settlement-enforcement denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 51-12-33 requires apportionment against a nonparty the plaintiff settled with. | McReynolds argues § 51-12-33 doesn’t apply because Krebs wasn’t at fault. | GM contends apportionment applies regardless of plaintiff fault and settlement; no contribution. | Apportionment required; no contribution or set-off against GM. |
| Whether McReynolds could cross-examine Krebs about conflicting pleadings regarding GM's liability. | McReynolds seeks to admit complaint/answers to show inconsistencies. | Pleadings are not evidence of liability; amendments control. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no admissible conflicting claim. |
| Whether the case could be apportioned between McReynolds and GM given the record. | McReynolds lacked evidence of GM’s fault to present apportionment. | Apportionment can occur even without GM as a party; plaintiff failed to prove fault. | McReynolds presented no evidence; no apportionment issues submitted. |
| Whether the settlement with Krebs was enforceable against McReynolds. | Krebs and McReynolds formed a binding agreement; carrier’s letters show acceptance. | Letters conditioned on liens; constituted counter-offer; no meeting of minds. | No binding settlement; objective evidence shows counteroffer and unresolved liens. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cavalier Convenience v. Sarvis, 305 Ga.App. 141 (2010) (apportionment required even when plaintiff not at fault; § 51-12-33 controls)
- Frickey v. Jones, 280 Ga. 573 (2006) (employer lien conditions render an acceptance not binding; counteroffers)
- Murray v. Patel, 304 Ga.App. 253 (2010) (discussion of dismissal error concerning apportionment under § 51-12-33)
- Matrix Financial Svcs. v. Dean, 288 Ga.App. 666 (2007) (de novo standard for enforcement-of-settlement appeal)