 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ferqueron v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.2/10/2005
This appeal arises out of the trial court's order reducing a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Ronnie O'Neal Ferqueron by the amount of worker's compensation benefits paid or owed to Ferqueron. Because Ferqueron agreed to use the general verdict form about which he now complains, and because we cannot conclude from the incomplete record before us that the trial court erred in reducing the judgment, we affirm.
Ferqueron brought this action against Benito Hernandez for injuries Ferqueron received in a motor vehicle collision. Ferqueron settled with Hernandez's insurance carrier under a limited liability release for its policy limits of $15,000. Ferqueron was driving his employer's vehicle at the time of the collision and either received or was owed worker's compensation benefits totaling $33,044.68. Ferqueron was an insured under three policies issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The policies provided UM coverage totaling $45,000. In addition, Ferqueron was an insured under a policy issued by Zurich-American Insurance Company, which covered the vehicle Ferqueron was driving at the time of the collision. That policy provided UM coverage of $40,000. Both insurance companies filed answers to Ferqueron's complaint. It is undisputed that State Farm was the primary carrier.
The case proceeded to trial, with the jury awarding Ferqueron damages of $50,000. The trial court reduced the jury's verdict by $15,000, the amount of the previously entered limited liability release, The $15,000 reduction is not a subject of this appeal. On motion by the insurers, the trial court concluded that the insurers were entitled to an offset for the amount of worker's compensation benefits paid to Ferqueron. The court then entered judgment in Ferqueron's favor in the amount of $1,955.32 and concluded that Zurich was discharged from the action. Ferqueron appeals, arguing that the verdict was improperly reduced by the amount of worker's compensation benefits. He more specifically contends that " he general verdict form precluded the trial court from determining what `sums' the jury was paying plaintiff for medical expense, lost earnings and pain and suffering."
The policies issued by State Farm provided for payment of damages arising from injuries caused by the driver of an uninsured or underinsured vehicle. Under the section entitled "Limits of Liability," the policies also recite as follows: "Any amount payable under this coverage shall be reduced by any amount paid or payable to or for the insured: a. under any worker's compensation, disability benefits, or similar law; or b. under any policy of property insurance."
It is axiomatic that " hen the language of a policy is unambiguous and capable of but one reasonable construction, we enforce the contract as written." (Footnote and citation omitted.) Crafter v. State Farm Ins. Co., 251 Ga. App. 642, 644 (554 SE2d 571) (2001). The language in the policies issued to Ferqueron unambiguously provides to State Farm a setoff for worker's compensation benefits paid to an insured. We have held that such setoffs are permissible. As stated in Northbrook Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Merchant, 215 Ga. App. 273, 276 (450 SE2d 425) (1994), " he unambiguous terms of the polic at issue provide for the offset of uninsured motorist benefits based upon the workers' compensation benefits to which the insureds are entitled, and this limitation in liability is not precluded by statute or contrary to the public policy of this State."
Acknowledging that similar setoff language has been approved generally in cases such as Northbrook, Ferqueron contends that the setoff was inappropriate here pursuant to language in the uninsured mot
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.
|
|