Windel Carden filed this action seeking contribution against alleged joint tortfeasors Georgia Power Company (“Georgia Power”) and its driver Lenwood Burckhalter, for injuries to Ricky Bаrnes. In January 1990, Carden’s vehicle collided with Burckhalter’s Georgia Power truck and Burckhalter’s truck then collided with Ricky Barnes. In February 1990, Carden’s insurer, Georgia Farm Bureau Insurance Cоmpany (“Farm Bureau”), issued checks for $2,303.28 and $399 in property damage to Georgia Power and Al Body & Frame Shop; Carden did not give written consent to the settlement agreemеnt between his insurer Farm Bureau and Georgia Power. Ricky Barnes then sued Carden, Burckhalter and Georgia Power. In November 1992, Carden’s insurer, Farm Bureau, paid Ricky Barnes $25,000 for bodily injury. However, Carden says Farm Bureau never consulted him about this settlement or notified Georgia Power of his lack of consent to it.
In this suit, Carden asserts that Burckhalter’s negligence caused their collision and also caused Burckhalter’s collision with Ricky Barnes. Carden contends Georgia Power and Burckhalter are jointly and severally liable for a cоntribution of one-half of the $25,000 paid by Farm Bureau to Ricky Barnes. Carden filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Farm Bureau’s property settlement to Georgia Pоwer; he conceded that this suit is filed under Farm Bureau’s rights of subrogation in his policy to recover amounts paid on his behalf, because he “has a responsibility to cooperate in collecting the money paid” and “to seek recovery from the joint tortfeasors under the policy contract.” He asserted that by paying the property settlement to Georgia Power, his insurer Farm Bureau acted as an independent contractor (see OCGA § 33-7-12); thus, its property damage settlement with Georgia Power without his writtеn consent does not preclude his claim for contribution from Georgia Power of money paid by Farm Bureau to Ricky Barnes and should not be admitted in evidence in this suit. The trial court denied Carden’s motion in limine.
At trial, Georgia Power and Burckhalter moved to dismiss this suit on grounds of accord and satisfaction, contending that Farm Bureau’s payment of Georgia Power’s property damage amounts to an admission that Carden was at fault. After presentation of evidence, the trial court ruled: “This is not a case for contribution. ... By acknowledging [Georgia Power’s property] claim, [Farm Bureau] acknowledged its liability to [Georgia Power] and to its driver Burckhalter and that the payments made by [Farm Bureau] to [Georgia Power] . . . were a settlement of [an unquestioned] claim on certain terms. . . . Georgia Farm Bureau’s payment to [Georgia Power] *488 acted as an admission of liability and accord and satisfaction of all claims between these parties.”
Carden contends he can assert this claim for contribution because OCGA § 33-7-12 allows an insured to assert claims when the insurer’s settlement of claims was without his consent. Appellees contend the trial court’s finding of an accord and satisfaction is supported by sufficient evidence. Held:
1. (a) Appellees contend the standard for review of a grant of motion to dismiss is whether the ruling is supported by “any evidence,” because in
Vaughan v. Vaughan,
(b) In the same vеin, appellees contend this dismissal is really a grant of directed verdict at trial, which must be affirmed because the trial court was “authorized” to find Carden admitted liability and beсause there is “sufficient evidence” of accord and satisfaction. Appel-lees contend the appellate court “should apply the directed verdict/ motion to dismiss [non-jury trial] standard which this court described in
Southern Gen. Ins. Co. v. Holt,
A directed verdict is authorized only when “there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict.” OCGA § 9-11-50 (a). A
grant
of directed verdict is a ruling that the evidence and all reasonable deductions therefrom
demand
a particular verdict. OCGA § 9-11-50 (a). It is illogical to say such a finding will be uрheld if there is “any evidence” to support it. A grant of directed verdict can be upheld only where we determine that
all
the evidence demands that verdict. This requires a de novo review. It was said in
Ga. Dept. of Human Resources v. Montgomery,
2. The trial court heard evidence and concluded “there is no merit in an action for contribution in this case and the same [is] dismissed in its entirety.” The trial court’s ruling that the claim cannot be maintained is correct as a directed verdict, though not for the reasons given.
(a) All the evidence introduced demands a verdict in appellees Georgia Power’s and Burckhalter’s favor on a claim for “contribution” by Carden. Carden has made no payment to Barnes. This is a subrogation claim made for Farm Bureau. Under OCGA § 33-7-12, Farm Bureau cannot preclude Carden from asserting “a claim” or defense against Barnes, Georgia Power, or Burckhalter; but “a claim” refers to a claim of the insured, not to a subrogation right of the insurer. This subrogation claim is not a claim of the insured, but is a claim of the insurer.
(b) Furthermore, Farm Bureau has no right of subrogation because it did nоt make a payment to Barnes as insurer or agent of the insured under Carden’s policy. Even if that payment operated to discharge (or to assume) Farm Bureau’s duty under the policy, Farm Bureau acted only as an independent contractor, according to § 33-7-12 (a). The policy permits Farm Bureau to settle claims without Carden’s consent, but thе effect of such settlement is governed by statute. Under OCGA § 33-7-12 (a), a provision which permits the insurer to compromise claims or defenses of the insured without his consent “shall be deеmed to create . . . the relationship of an independent contractor.” (Emphasis supplied.) The designation in OCGA § 33-7-12 of Farm Bureau as “independent contractor” estаblishes as a matter of law that its payment made without Carden’s written consent was not made as his insurer under the policy of insurance.
Indeed, Farm Bureau is in no position to contend it paid Barnes under Carden’s insurance policy, for the release it took from Barnes *490 states: “In taking this release, [Farm Bureau] is acting as an independent contractor and not as an agent of any party released hereby other than itself.”
(c) Further, OCGA § 33-7-12 was enacted to protect the insured
{Jefferson Mills v. Gregson,
(d) Finally, although appellant does not cite to us the language of the property damage checks issued to Georgia Power by Farm Bureau (see Court of Appeals Rule 15), an admission of Carden’s liability for damage to Georgia Power’s vehicle is not necessarily an admission of Carden’s liаbility, or accord and satisfaction, for the third party’s (Barnes’) personal injury. In any case, it could not bind Carden individually, for it was made without his consent. OCGA § 33-7-12.
Judgment affirmed.