Wiedeman v. Canal Insurance Company, 1:15-cv-04182

On August 8, 2014 Plaintiff Gregory Wiedeman was injured in a collision with Walter P. Dorn IV, an employee of H&F Transfer, Inc. (H&F).
H&F is a South Carolina–based interstate motor carrier (federally registered) that operated in Georgia solely in interstate commerce; it had no Georgia intrastate registration or insurance filings in 2014.
Plaintiff sued Canal Insurance Company as H&F’s insurer, alleging a Georgia statutory "direct action" claim; the Amended Complaint cited O.C.G.A. § 40-1-112 (an intrastate-carrier statute).
Canal moved for summary judgment arguing Section 40-1-112 does not apply because H&F was not an intrastate Georgia carrier and that the mis-citation is fatal to the claim.
Plaintiff conceded § 40-1-112 is inapplicable but argued his claim is viable under O.C.G.A. § 40-2-140 (which joinder/direct-action provisions courts have applied to interstate carriers) and that Canal had fair notice of the direct-action theory.
The Court denied Canal’s motion, holding the mis-citation was not fatal because Canal had fair notice and the claim was properly supported under § 40-2-140.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Canal is subject to a direct-action under GA law despite H&F being an interstate carrier	Wiedeman: direct action is available under O.C.G.A. § 40-2-140 for insurers of interstate carriers operating through Georgia	Canal: direct action under § 40-1-112 requires intrastate registration in Georgia; H&F lacked that, so Canal is not subject to direct action	Court: § 40-2-140 applies to interstate carriers; Plaintiff may proceed under § 40-2-140
Whether citing the wrong Georgia statute in the complaint is fatal	Wiedeman: mis-citation was harmless because Canal had fair notice that Plaintiff sought to hold insurer directly liable	Canal: Plaintiff pleaded § 40-1-112 and cannot switch theories at summary judgment	Court: Pleading the wrong statute is not fatal where defendant had fair notice and the correct legal basis was presented before the court

Herzog v. Castle Rock Entm’t, 193 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir.) (summary judgment burden and standard)
Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir.) (nonmoving party’s obligations at summary judgment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S.) (courts need not adopt blatantly contradicted versions of facts)
Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.) (when summary judgment is appropriate)
McGill v. Am. Trucking & Transp. Ins. Co., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1261 (N.D. Ga.) (§ 40-2-140 joinder provisions apply to interstate carriers)
Hatmaker v. Mem’l Med. Ctr., 619 F.3d 741 (7th Cir.) (wrong statutory citation can be cured if defendant not prejudiced)
McQueen v. City of Chicago, 803 F. Supp. 2d 892 (N.D. Ill.) (plaintiffs not required to plead specific legal theories)
Doss v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 834 F.2d 421 (5th Cir.) (improper legal theory in pleading does not preclude recovery under proper theory)
Ryan v. Illinois Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 185 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.) (wrong statute not fatal where complaint gave notice and plaintiff presented legal support in response to summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S.) (nonmoving party must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find for it)