Howard Segan filed a tort action against Joel Markwell, seeking to recover for personal injuries suffered in a two-car collision. Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers), as Segan’s uninsured motorist carrier, was served with a copy of the complaint against Markwell. *67 Travelers did not, however, file an answer in its own name and, by not doing so, elected not to become a party to the action.
Segan’s tort action against Markwell proceeded to trial before a jury. The jury returned a $30,000 verdict in favor of Segan. On the jury’s verdict in favor of Segan, the trial court entered judgment against Markwell “in the amount of $10,000 and [judgment] against Travelers ... in the amount of $15,000, [Segan] being entitled to recover a total of $25,000, that is, the amount of the jury verdict less the no-fault credit of $5,000 to which Markwell is entitled.” (Emphasis supplied.) In Case Number 77638, Travelers appeals from the $15,000 judgment entered against it. In Case Number 77848, Segan cross-appeals from the $25,000 judgment entered in his favor.
Case No. 77638
1. A motion to dismiss the main appeal has been filed, the contention being that Travelers was not a party to the action below and therefore lacks the standing to bring this appeal.
It is true that Travelers
should
not be a party to the action below. Although it was served with a copy of Segan’s complaint against Markwell, Travelers filed no answer in its own name. Accordingly, Travelers elected not to interject the issue of its contractual liability to Segan into the case and the action below was tried solely as to the issue of Markwell’s tort liability to Segan. See generally
Smith v. Phillips,
However, it is also true that Travelers
was
made a party to the action below when the trial court entered judgment and made Travelers a judgment debtor as to Segan. It is illogical to suggest that one against whom a judgment has been entered lacks the standing to appeal from that judgment. Since Travelers was actually made a party to the judgment (compare
Gates v. Rutledge,
2. In its enumerations of error, Travelers does not cite its lack of capacity as a party to the action below and does not urge that, on that basis, there should be a complete reversal of the judgment that was entered against it. It contends only that the trial court erred by entering a $15,000 rather than a $10,000 judgment against it. Thus, Travelers waives the trial court’s erroneous entry of any judgment whatsoever against it. In effect, Travelers consents to the trial court’s entry of a judgment against it, contending merely that there was a *68 miscalculation of the amount of the judgment to which it has otherwise consented.
The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $30,000. From this verdict, the sum of $5,000, which represented the amount of no-fault benefits available to Segan, must be written off. See OCGA § 33-34-9 (b). As to the $25,000 that is thus recoverable by Segan, Travelers, as Segan’s uninsured motorist carrier, “should bear the [amount of] damages exceeding [Markwell’s] liability coverage. ...” Ga.
Farm &c. Ins. Co. v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co.,
Case No. 77848
3. The cross-appeal is rendered moot by virtue of our disposition of the main appeal.
Judgment in Case No. 77638 is affirmed with direction. Appeal in Case No. 77848 is dismissed.