Opinion ID: 1239296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: effect of georgia regulations on out-of-state collisions

Text: The DeHarts do not seek to recover from Liberty Mutual under the terms of its liability insurance policy with Senn Trucking. By its terms, the policy expired on May 27,1987. Instead, the DeHarts seek coverage as third-party beneficiaries of PSC regulations. Despite the expiration of its policy, Liberty Mutual failed to file a Form K notifying the PSC of the policy's cancellation. As a result, the DeHarts argue that the continuous coverage regulation mandates coverage for injuries incurred in a collision outside the state and the stacking of Liberty Mutual's policy on top of coverage afforded by the replacement policy that National Continental provided. 1. The Court of Appeals of Georgia has rendered conflicting opinions on the application of Georgia law regulating motor carriers when an accident occurs outside the state. In National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Marty, [6] one panel of the court of appeals held that Georgia's direct action statutes, which permit joinder of the motor carrier and its insurance carrier in the same action, did not have extraterritorial effect. Although the direct action statutes do not expressly restrict joinder of insurance carriers to causes of action arising on Georgia highways, the court of appeals relied on other statutory provisions in the chapter regulating motor carriers on the public highways of this state. [7] The court concluded that the trial court should have granted summary judgment to the insurance company because the plaintiff was injured on a Florida highway. Another court of appeals panel found Marty controlling when it determined that the DeHarts could not bring a direct cause of action against Liberty Mutual in state court. [8] When the same issue of joinder of the insurance carrier arose again, the whole court refused to follow the decisions in Marty and DeHart I. Instead, the court held in Johnson v. Woodard [9] that joinder of the insurer and the motor carrier in the same action is not prohibited merely because the collision occurred on a highway in South Carolina. [10] The majority found no principled reason to deny joinder to a person injured by a state-regulated carrier that is sued in Georgia. Rejecting the statutory interpretation in Marty, the Johnson majority concluded that mere reference to use of Georgia highways in some sections of the Act does not mean that a person has a cause of action ... only if an injury occurs on Georgia highways or streets. [11] Thus, while the court in Marty would not assume that the legislature intended to enact laws applying outside the state, the court in Johnson assumed the opposite. It concluded that the joinder statute applied to all out-of-state collisions because the legislature did not expressly prohibit joinder in that situation. While the court of appeals in those cases dealt with the direct action statute and this case deals with the PSC's continuous coverage regulation, the cases are similar to the extent that they concern the ability of persons injured in out-of-state accidents to sue Georgia motor carriers in Georgia based on state law. As the conflicting opinions of the court of appeals state, however, the language of the motor carrier act does not directly address whether state law applies to collisions that occur outside the state. Based on the purpose of the motor carrier act and PSC regulations, we conclude that the continuous coverage provision applies to motor vehicle collisions that occur outside the state of Georgia. The state motor carrier acts were enacted to protect members of the general public against injuries caused by the negligence of a Georgia motor carrier. [12] The statutes do not preclude the application of state law to motor carriers with a Georgia certificate of public convenience and necessity for injuries they cause outside Georgia. The policy in this case covered accidents that occurred throughout the United States during the policy period. Given the purpose of the motor carrier laws and the nature of interstate travel, we conclude that the continuous coverage provision applies to both Georgia and out-of-state residents who are injured in other states by Georgia motor carriers.