Royal v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
333 Ga. App. 881
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Robert Royal was hired for ~2 weeks in Aug 2013 to haul corn for farmer Kim Eugene Williams using one of Williams’s trucks; Royal had a new CDL and no prior hauling experience.
- Williams owned and supplied the truck, paid for insurance, fuel, and maintenance, provided all equipment, and could fire Royal.
- Royal worked full-time for Williams during the assignment (10–12 hours/day), followed Williams’s lead driver, and was told when, where, and how to work; farm workers loaded the truck and controlled load amounts.
- Royal settled under Williams’s Farm Package Policy; Georgia Farm Bureau sought a declaratory judgment that Royal was excluded under Williams’s Auto Policy as an employee.
- The Auto Policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to an "employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment;" the policy did not define "employee."
Issues
| Issue | Royal's Argument | Georgia Farm Bureau/Williams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Royal was an employee or independent contractor for Auto Policy exclusion | Royal contends he was an independent contractor (distinct occupation, short-term, provided logbook, ambiguous pay method) | Williams had the right to control time, manner, method, and means; provided tools/equipment; directed work; could fire Royal | Royal was an employee; exclusion applies |
| Proper legal test for status | Restatement §220 factors support independent-contractor finding | Control test (right to direct time, manner, methods, means) is determinative; Restatement factors considered but control is key | Control test governs; undisputed control shows employment |
| Significance of payment method and tax treatment | Alleged payment by bushel and lack of tax withholding indicate independent contractor | Method of payment and tax withholding are circumstantial and not dispositive against clear control evidence | Payment/tax facts not decisive; do not create genuine issue |
| Effect of short-term/seasonal nature and skill level | Short seasonal term and trucking skill indicate independent contractor | Seasonal hiring and skill do not negate employer control; transporting is part of Williams’s regular farming business | Short-term/skill do not change status where control is shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatright v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 304 Ga. App. 119 (employee status where employer supplied tools, supervised work, and could discharge worker)
- Wade v. Allstate Fire and Cas. Co., 324 Ga. App. 491 (contract interpreted as whole)
- Taylor Morrison Svcs., Inc. v. HDI-Gerling America Ins. Co., 293 Ga. 456 (common meaning of undefined policy terms)
- RBF Holding Co. v. Williamson, 260 Ga. 526 (control test: right to direct time, manner, methods, means)
- Fieldstone Center, Inc. v. Stanley, 216 Ga. App. 803 (work part of regular business can indicate employment)
- Southern Gen. Ins. Co. v. Boerste, 195 Ga. App. 665 (special skill not dispositive when employer controls time/destination)
- Golosh v. Cherokee Cab Co., 226 Ga. 636 (method of payment is circumstantial, not controlling)
- Murphy v. Blue Bird Body Co., 207 Ga. App. 853 (Restatement factors used in Georgia analysis)
Judgment affirmed.