Case Title: Creel v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co.

Citation: 260 Ga. 499, 397 S.E.2d 294

Docket Number: S90A0894

State: georgia

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Date: 1990-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
260 Ga. 499 (1990) 397 S.E.2d 294 CREEL v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. S90A0894. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided November 2, 1990. Wildman, Harrold, Allen, Dixon & Branch, Robert N. Dokson, Frank O. Brown, Jr., for appellant. Bovis, Kyle & Burch, Terry L. Yewell, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, John L. Latham, Carter & Ansley, Thomas E. Magill, for appellees. BELL, Justice. We granted certiorari in this case to review whether the action of appellee Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company against appellant Richard Creel should have been dismissed on the ground Cotton States did not file with its complaint an expert affidavit pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-9.1. That statue provides that in an action alleging professional malpractice a plaintiff must attach to his or her complaint an expert affidavit setting forth the specific act or acts constituting professional malpractice. We find that no expert affidavit was required in the present case, because Cotton States' action against Creel is not one of professional malpractice but one of simple negligence. Creel's business is the design, negotiation, and implementation of structured settlements utilizing annuities and financial plans. In 1985 Cotton States contacted Creel and requested that he provide Cotton States with several structured settlement plans that could be used to settle a lawsuit against Cotton States. Cotton States decided to use one of the annuities proposed by Creel and settled the lawsuit. The annuity chosen by Cotton States provided, as part of the plan, for the payment of $500 per month for a ten-year period. However, Executive Life Insurance Company, the company providing the annuity, calculated the price of the annuity based on the payment of $500 per year for the ten-year period in question. Consequently, the premium originally paid by Cotton States was insufficient to fund the annuity. When Executive Life discovered the discrepancy and learned that the annuity had to provide $500 per month for the ten-year period, Executive Life required Cotton States to pay an additional premium of about $13,000. Thereafter, Cotton States instituted the instant action, contending that Creel negligently informed Executive Life, either personally or through another agent, that the annuity had to provide $500 per year for the ten-year period, not $500 per month. Creel moved to dismiss based on § 9-11-9.1. Creel contended that he was a professional within the meaning of § 9-11-9.1, and that Cotton States should have attached an expert affidavit to its complaint. Cotton States opposed Creel's motion, contending that Creel was not a professional within the meaning of § 9-11-9.1, and that, even if Creel were a professional *500 within the meaning of the statute, an expert affidavit was not required because Cotton State's action was one based on simple negligence, not professional malpractice. The trial court denied Creel's motion on the ground that § 9-11-9.1 was inapplicable to Cotton States' claim against Creel, and the Court of Appeals denied Creel's application for interlocutory appeal. We then granted certiorari to examine whether an affidavit alleging professional malpractice was required. We now affirm the trial court's judgment, concluding that, even if Creel is a professional within the meaning of § 9-11-9.1, Cotton States was not required to file an affidavit under § 9-11-9.1 because Cotton States' action against Creel is not a professional malpractice action but a simple negligence action. In Central Georgia EMC v. Southern Engineering Co., 260 Ga. 409, 410 (395 SE2d 809) (1990), we recognized that In the present case, Cotton States does not allege that Creel failed to exercise proper expertise in designing the annuity plan; rather, Cotton States alleges that Creel was negligent in transmitting to Executive Life information regarding the regularity of the payment of the $500 for the ten-year period in question. This is an allegation of simple negligence. Accordingly, Cotton States was not required to file an expert affidavit pursuant to § 9-11-9.1. We thus affirm the trial court, and find it unnecessary to determine whether Creel is a "professional" within the meaning of § 9-11-9.1. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., who concurs specially. WELTNER, Justice, concurring specially. We granted certiorari to answer the following inquiry: "What is a professional as contemplated by OCGA § 9-11-9.1?" I suggest that the term "professional" should be limited for purposes of the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1, as follows: 1. (a) OCGA § 14-7-2 provides: (b) OCGA § 14-10-2 provides: (c) OCGA § 43-1-24 provides: 2. The foregoing limitations suggest that Creel is not a "professional" within the meaning of OCGA § 9-11-9.1.