*1 (b). ney Appeals v.Nelson-Rives Rule 15 See Johnson under Court Realty, App. 638, Miller, J., Judgment J., concur. P. and Ruffin, affirmed. April 2003.

Decided Boykin appellant. Edwards, Jr., for appellee. Christopher

Burroughs Keene, Jones, S. & LOUISIANA, OF A02A1858. GULF STATES UNDERWRITERS et al. v. BENNETT. INC.

A02A1859. THOMAS v. BENNETT. Presiding Judge. Ruffin, Jimmy his claim Bennett filed a workers’ (“Northwest employer, Georgia”), Personal Care Home Northwest Louisiana, Inc./National Asso- Underwriters of States (“Gulf States”),1 Employers Thomas, A. B. the insur- ciation of ance Following a hear- that sold Northwest (“ALJ”) judge ing, held Gulf States and and the administrative law of workers’ Thomas liable for attorney affirmed, and both Gulf fees. The award was

assessed States and Thomas filed discretionary appeal.

applications In granted application; A02A1858, and Case Case No. we Gulf States’ granted application. A02A1859, For reasons that fol- No. Thomas’ low, we reverse. essentially undisputed. In Joann

The facts this case are sought compensa- Georgia, Blevins, the owner of Northwest workers’ difficulty obtaining insurance, tion had insurance due to but expense. agent representing point, Thomas, At Blevins with some met According Blevins, Thomas told

Gulf States. [obtaining help [her] insurance], her that “he could that he had something just comp,” expensive. Thomas then like workers’ but less Group Policy” “Employers sold Blevins an Blanket Accident compensation policy. expressly provided a workers’ that it was not Company Life was issued American Pioneer and administered Gulf States. relationship Underwriters of Louisiana and National Associ between Gulf States related, closely entirely appears companies Employers It are ation of clear. entity. Compensation essentially treated them as the same and the State Board of Workers’ collectively clarity, as “Gulf States.”

For the we refer to the two entities sake not a workers’ purportedly issue shared characteristics of a workers’ many compensa- injuries,” tion it insured policy. Specifically, against “occupational the usual and injury occurring during which it defined “accidental of duties the insured customary performance required by person’s *2 amounts, other total policy paid, among disability normal work.” maximum per to week for a of 60 weeks and medical up $250 $5,000 to accident. expenses up per 6, 1998, Bennett,

On a Northwest April Georgia employee, sus- a work injury. began receiving tained Bennett checks from Gulf States in the amount of week. Bennett per told Blevins he $250 week, and, receiving Bennett, should be per Blev- $325 the “up ins made difference.” Six weeks after the injury, Bennett 1999, however, returned to work. In he full time as stopped working a result of his injury. Bennett then filed a workers’ compensation claim, of seeking payment benefits, temporary partial disability medical and assessed unpaid expenses, attorney fees.

The ALJ scheduled a on Bennett’s claim hearing for October 2000. The notice of lists Gulf States and Thomas as “insur- ers” the April 1998 accident. Prior to the hearing, E. B. Sand- ers, States, of president submitted an affidavit to the State Board, setting forth that Gulf States was not insurance company, American but an “Administrator[ ] Pioneer Life Insurance Com- Sanders pany.” further averred that the was policy not a workers’ and that Blevins such. “acknowledged” Sanders attached to his affidavit a certification Blevins that signed by stated that she “fully understood] that this is not Workmen’s Compensation insurance American Pioneer Life Insurance Company to, authorized and does not write that type coverage.” of Also before the hearing, Thomas wrote letters that he clarifying was not an insurer, but the merely that had sold the Blevins. Although neither Gulf States nor Thomas present was or represented at the hearing, of Sanders’ copies affidavit and Thomas’ letters were admitted into evidence.

Following the the ALJ held Gulf States and Thomas lia- ble for payment benefits, of income medical expenses, assessed attorney fees.2 The ALJ noted that “indicate [d] its face and on the application for such insurance that such not a was of workers’ compensation insurance.” The ALJ nonetheless concluded that, order provide justice Bennett, “[i]n to Northwest Georgia and I find that insurance issued American Pioneer Life The ALJ also held Northwest liable for of income and medical bene fits. Company system [workers’ compensa- was a substitute tion] insurance” in accordance with OCGA 34-9-14. appealed appel-

Gulf States and Thomas the ALJ’s award to the appellate order, late division. In its division reasoned that could not consider deemed letters, Sanders’ affidavit or Thomas’ which it

hearsay. appellate questioned division then whether by failing Gulf States and Thomas “waived their defenses” to attend hearing. Finally, appellate division concluded that the ALJ construing did not err in as an alternative workers’ com- pensation policy and in Gulf States and Thomas liable. The subsequently court decision, affirmed that and these appeals ensued.

Case No. A02A18593 appeal, 1. On Thomas that the State Board lacked against According matter Thomas, to entertain the claim him. “[a]ny damages [him], awarded a non-insurer Judge’s findings, Administrative Law own would amount to dam- ages” alleged agree. for an fraud. We *3 Compensation “The State Board of Workmen’s court, is not a but body only powers given is an administrative those and duties it jurisdiction statute.”4 rights such, As it “has no to declare the of parties purpose as a Rather, court.”5 the limited Compensation complete Workers’ Act is “to a and exclusive system procedure disputes employ- and for the resolution of between employees subject chapter.”6 ers and who are to this undisputed Here, the evidence is that Thomas is an insurance agent. Evidently, although the ALJ that, determined neither an employer perpetrating insurer, nor Thomas should be held liable for leading a fraud Blevins, her to believe she had fulfilled her legal obligation compensation to obtain workers’ insurance.7 How- any statutory authority ever, this Court is unaware of that would permit Compensation adjudicate the State Board of Workers’ a damages.8 fraud claim and assess unpersuaded We are Bennett’s contention that this is not a upon fraud case as we can ascertain no other basis which Thomas 3 clarity, analyze For the sake of the two cases in reverse order. 4 Martin, 198, Nat. Biscuit Co. v. Crowder, Fireman’s Fund App. Ins. Co. v. 6 (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 34-9-23. (a). 34-9-120; See OCGA §§ 34-9-121 Co., See Cline v. Aetna Cas. &c. (predeces Ga. agency subject sor jurisdiction of State Board damages lacks matter over claim in which fraud). sought alleged for clearly Compensation Act

might The Workers’ held liable.9 have been importantly, payment employers More of benefits.10 for liable holds payment employee of provides to seek basis for no the Act According agent. Bennett, is Thomas an insurance from liability imposes personal § 33-23-41, which under liable However, this Code sec in limited circumstances. Compensation Insurance Act, but the Workers’ tion may argument, Assuming, that Thomas sake of for the e.1 Cod provision Code, it under a held liable be Compensation is the Board of Workers’ the State does not follow proper adjudicating Board of Thus, the State the issue.12 forum jurisdiction Compensation it had erred Workers’ matter, and we reverse. this over No. A02A1858

Case Board lacked that the State Thomas, States 2. Like According jurisdiction. States, the State Board to Gulf matter servicing agent jurisdiction that administers over a has no has the State Board It is clear that nonworkers’ policies. servicing agents for workers’ over argument turns on its contention Thus, Gulf States’ the. compensation. for workers’ issued was not liberally Compensation construed to Act is to be The Workers’ interpret “[w]e employees employers.13 protect And are to and both deny permit, language its benefits to will so as not Act, if its employer[s].”14 § 34-9-125, employee Pursuant to OCGA or either compensa- insuring “[e]very policy encompasses Act against liability pay- insuring provided or for in this article tion compensation.” ment such “ ‘[w]hen statutory construction, a statute is rules of Under the susceptible plain construction, and reasonable one natural of but authority place a different construction has no the court ”15 issue to its terms.’ construe but must .it compensation policy. expressly it is not a workers’ states that *4 9 found, fact, that Thomas was suggests the ALJ as a matter Bennett testimony insurer, supported Blevins’ makes clear suggestion the record. this acknowledged agent, much in the award. and the ALJ that Thomas is 10 (a). 34-9-120; 34-9-121 §§ See OCGA 11 See 33-1-1. 12 Cline, supra. See 13 (562 (1) Foster, 477, App. SE2d 254 483 Center v. Ga. See DeKalb Collision (2002). 14Id. 15 (1) (534 268, Center, App. 270 SE2d 244 Ga. Detention v. Western Probation Mickens 927) (2000).

703 policy provided coverage injured for Northwest for nonetheless some obligated pay benefits it was workers accordance with policy against liability pay- Thus, Act. served to insure the ment of Board’s purview benefits, and, thus, it comes under the of the State authority.16 It that the Board matter State has scope policy. to address the separate error, In3. enumeration of Gulf States the ALJ erred in “that the issued to Northwest compensation policy.” . . . was a . . . substitute for a workers’ Ben- argument nett, however, asserts that Gulf States waived this fail- ing appear hearing. Accordingly, matter, at the as a threshold argument must address whether this has been waived.17 appellate generally It is well established that an court will presented appeal.18 decline to address issues for the first time on requires parties oppor- Fairness tunity and the trial court have an appellate to address issues before the In court does so.19 this case, Gulf States did not attend the before the ALJ. It does automatically arguments follow, however, not that Gulf States’ are being appeal. raised for the first time on Gulf States submitted an establishing position affidavit its did not compensation coverage, workers’ below.20 ALJ erred which framed one of the issues tried

Accordingly, addressing we find no bar to our whether the compen- was a substitute workers’ sation interpretation “Construction and of a contract are matters of law “ ‘[ejvery Moreover,

for the court.”21 insurance contract shall be con- entirety strued to of its terms and conditions as set amplified, by any forth in the extended, and as or modified ”22 application part policy.’ rider, endorsement, or made a unequivocally compen- at issue states that it is anot workers’ policy, provides substantially coverage sation and it less than the 16 See OCGA 34-9-125. 17 Baugh-Carroll Hosp. Randolph County, Bennett cites the case of Auth. 248 Ga. (545 690) (2001), App. proposition 591 SE2d argument for the that Gulf States waived its However, appeal. timely that case involved a defendant’s failure to assert an affirmative (1). defense, Rather, which is not issue here. Id. at 593-594 the issue here is whether argument preserved appellate States’ has been review. 18 (1) Bank, 819, App. See Johnson v. First Union Nat. 255 Ga. SE2d (2) (573 389) (2002). 827, Dept. of Transp., See v. Ga. 275 Ga. SE2d Pfeiffer appellate The affidavit was admitted at the but the division concluded that hearsay Although hearsay may it was that could not be considered. not be considered for the asserted, may truth of the purpose. matter nonetheless be admissible for some other See (2) (545 Falconer, 243, App. Hubert v. (hearsay properly 248 Ga. conduct). explain admitted to (1) 878) (1999). Dev., Hull/Storey App. Sewell v. Co., Guaranty Cox v. Southern Ins. *5 language requires.23 Compensation here, the Where, as Act

Workers’ authority unambiguous, to disre- has no a court a is Accordingly, the gard the trial court concluded inasmuch as it.24 The fact that it erred. a workers’ was compensation mistakenly workers’ she had obtained believed Blevins insurance required “[a]n read result, insured who can is does not alter presumed have understood its and is to read the contents.”25 workers’ not constitute a substitute

Furthermore, the does Compensation policy. compensation complete Act constitutes a “The Workers’ recoverability subject, and the of laws code statutory strictly compensation a matter of con- is benefits workers’ right to such benefits.”26 there is no common law struction, because system pertinent part, provides, in that a substitute OCGA 34-9-14 by approved Board of must the State be of workers’ equal provide Compensation benefits at least and must Workers’ Compensation required Act. As noted the Workers’ those policy issued to Northwest ALJ, no evidénce that the there is importantly, approved by More does the State Board. was required equal Act. It to those under the not that the ALJ tute workers’ policy constitutes a substi- erred in holding, States’ remain- we need not address Gulf In view of this ing allegations of error. Barnes, J., Adams, J., spe- concurs. concurs reversed.

Judgments cially. Barnes, concurring Judge, specially. fully opinion, concerning I in Division of this concur opinion concerning A02A1859, in Division of the Case

Case No. A02A1858,1 that is said in Division 3 of the cannot concur all No. opinion opinion. I reaches the Nevertheless, because believe judgment. required law, I must concur also result under our disability Compensation pays example, Act total income benefits for For the Workers’ policy, noncatastrophic injury See OCGA 34-9-261. The for a maximum of 400 weeks. weeks, hand, regardless provides of 60 of whether income benefits for a maximum the other injury catastrophic. is Hipps, See Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. only). (physical precedent omitted.) (Punctuation Cox, supra. omitted.) (Punctuation Mickens, supra at 269-270. and footnotes 28, 2003 February Decided April 3, 2003 denied Reconsideration Davis, L. Robert Brinson, Askew, Richardson & Berry, Seigler, A02A1858). (case no. Jr., Cordle, for appellants L. Berry, Kristy A02A1859). (case no. Thornton, for appellant T. Michael *6 Jr., for Lundy, appellee. William L. COMPANY AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE

A02A2264. FIRST v. BROADSTREET. Judge. Eldridge, complaint Delcie Broadstreet filed her verified

Appellee-plaintiff and to set aside a deed to stop relief to foreclosure injunctive by appel- initiation of foreclosure upon proceedings secure debt First Company. lant-defendant First American Title Insurance venue, filed its motion to dismiss or transfer American thereafter foreign corporation registered agent its status as a asserting injunction an County. Following interlocutory resident of Fulton her an action complaint, adding Ms. Broadstreet amended entry 23-3-62. This appeal1 title under OCGA quiet § First American’s motion to dismiss or denying court’s order superior interlocutory injunction to Ms. granting transfer venue foreclosure the deed to secure debt. prohibiting any Broadstreet superior First American contends that court erred (2), arguing venue as laid under OCGA 33-4-1 properly instant action does not arise out of its business as an insurer and in Carroll place County; it has no or business to Ms. Broadstreet was error as grant interlocutory injunction of an which complaint entered in the absence of notice of her amended added an action to title after the court’s quiet (“Act”), Quiet and that Title Act of 1966 interlocutory injunction; 23-3-62, purports is unconstitutional insofar as it con- the land lies in an action to title county quiet venue where II, III, VI, Article Section Constitu- trary Paragraph Supreme Georgia transferred this case to this Court as neither within its Court of involving equity jurisdiction general appellate within in cases title nor its land, Const., VI, VI, (1), disposition upon deciding Par. III see 1983 Ga. Art. Sec. validity appeal secure debt. See turns on resolution of the issue of the of a deed to (1991); Corp., Knight, Beauchamp Hooten v. Goldome Credit