 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Builders Insurance Group7/19/2005
SMITH, P. J., ELLINGTON and ADAMS, JJ.
Builders Insurance Group, Inc. ("Builders") filed a petition in the Superior Court of Henry County seeking a judgment declaring its rights with respect to a policy of workers' compensation insurance it issued to Ker-Wil Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a B & K Builders ("Ker-Wil"). Builders filed a motion for summary judgment with its complaint, which the trial court did not address. Ker-Wil filed a motion to dismiss with its answer, which the superior court granted on the ground that a "declaratory judgment is inappropriate at this time." Builders appeals, contending the court erred in dismissing its petition and in denying its motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
1. Because the record reveals the trial court did not rule on Builders' motion for summary judgment, any claim of error with respect to the merits of that motion present nothing for us to review. Johnson v. Allgood Farm LLC, 278 Ga. 283, 284 (1) (602 SE2d 837) (2004). Further, given our holding in Division 2, any such claim of error is also moot.
2. Builders contends the trial court erred in dismissing the declaratory judgment action because an actual controversy as to its rights under the insurance policy exists and that the State Board of Workers' Compensation ("the Board") lacks jurisdiction to resolve that controversy.
The undisputed facts relevant to this enumeration of error are as follows. Jacob Reeves filed a claim with the Board, alleging that both Ker-Wil and Builders are responsible for the payment of benefits arising from an August 26, 2003 injury he sustained. Builders controverted the claim and denied coverage, contending that it had timely and properly cancelled Ker-Wil's workers' compensation policy prior to Reeve's claimed injury. Builders then filed the instant action on June 22, 2004, seeking a judgment declaring its rights with respect to the policy.
As the Supreme Court of Georgia has held: The purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act is "to settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations." OCGA ยง 9-4-1. The law is well established that declaratory judgment is not available where a judgment cannot guide and protect the petitioner with regard to some future act - as where an insurance company has already denied a claim. That is because declaratory judgment is not available to a party merely to test the viability of its defenses. [The insurer] having already denied coverage for the claims at issue here, declaratory judgment was not available because it was neither uncertain nor insecure in regard to its rights, status or legal relations.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Drawdy v. Direct General Ins. Co., 277 Ga. 107, 109 (586 SE2d 228) (2003). See also Adams v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 225 Ga. App. 482 (1) (484 SE2d 302) (1997) (accord). Because Builders had already denied coverage when it filed its petition for declaratory relief, it was not uncertain or insecure of its rights, status, or legal relations with respect to the making of that decision. Consequently, the trial court was correct in dismissing the action because a declaratory judgment was neither appropriate nor available. Drawdy v. Direct General Ins. Co., 277 Ga. at 109-110.
Builders argues, however, that there should be an exception to this rule in workers' compensation cases because the Board lacks subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the underlying coverage issue. Builders contends the Board lacks authority to issue declaratory judgments or to resolve contract disputes. Although we have found no Georgia case explicitly on point, Builder's assertion does
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|