Stafford Transport of Michigan, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company
24-12058
| 11th Cir. | Feb 4, 2025Background
- Steven Brock was injured in a trucking accident while hauling waste for Stafford Transport and became a quadriplegic.
- Brock was driving for Kenneth Carver Trucking, which had a contractor agreement with Stafford but no workers’ compensation insurance covering him at the time.
- Stafford had three relevant insurance policies: (1) workers’ compensation with Great American Alliance, (2) occupational-accident with US Fire, and (3) contingent-liability with Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance.
- Brock declined occupational-accident coverage and filed a workers’ compensation claim against Stafford and Great American before the Georgia Board, arguing he was Stafford’s statutory employee.
- The district court granted summary judgment finding Crum owed coverage under the contingent-liability policy; Crum appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Brock a 'covered person' (contractor) under Crum's policy? | Brock, as a contract driver, qualifies as a contractor under the policy. | Crum: Brock was not an owner/operator or contractor, nor party to a covered contract. | Yes; Brock was a contractor with a covered contract through the trucking agreement. |
| Did the contract meet the requirement for a 'fully executed contract'? | The agreement was executed by Kenneth Carver Trucking and accepted by Stafford via performance. | Crum: Stafford did not sign the contract, so it was not fully executed. | Yes; Stafford's acceptance was inferred by performance under Georgia law. |
| Was there sufficient determination Brock was an 'employee' as required by the policy? | Consent agreement and Board order established Brock’s status as statutory employee. | Crum: There was no formal regulatory or judicial determination because Stafford conceded. | Yes; the Board's order constituted a valid determination. |
| Does the policy’s exclusion for 'employees' bar coverage? | Exclusion only applies to employees recognized as such before the claim. | Crum: Coverage is excluded if Stafford later acknowledges Brock as an employee. | No; exclusion did not apply as Brock was not an employee before the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Khan, 705 S.E.2d 707 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (contract interpretation is a question of law under Georgia law)
- Gen. Steel, Inc. v. Delta Bldg. Sys., Inc., 676 S.E.2d 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (insurance contracts are enforced according to unambiguous terms)
- Burson v. Milton Hall Surgical Assocs., LLC, 806 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017) (contractual assent may be inferred from performance)
- Wilson v. Clark Atlanta Univ., Inc., 794 S.E.2d 422 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (contract terms should not be rendered meaningless)