Court Opinion

ID: 9574103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:02:16.704746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:05.997886
License: Public Domain

Weltner, Chief Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur with Division 2 and dissent from Divisions 1, 3 and the judgment.
1.1 agree that Denton v. Con-Way Southern Express, 261 Ga. 41 (402 SE2d 269) (1991) is not controlling. Denton was never a majority opinion; there were as many members of this court disagreeing as agreeing with it.
2. As to Division 1, I have reviewed the precedents and, while I respect their authority, I disagree with their conclusion.7
3. (a) OCGA § 46-7-12 (e) provides:
It shall be permissible under this article for any person having a cause of action arising under this article in tort or contract to join in the same action the motor carrier and its surety, in the event a bond is given. If a policy of indemnity insurance is given in lieu of bond, it shall be permissible to join the motor carrier and the insurance carrier in the same action, whether arising in tort or contract.
(b) I consider this provision to violate equal protection, as I discern no rational basis for the disparate treatment of insurance companies, depending upon the nature of the insured.
*386Decided July 9, 1992
Reconsideration denied July 30, 1992.
Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Thomas S. Carlock, D. Gary Lovell, Jr., for appellants.
Ford & Haley, James L. Ford, David C. Cole, for appellees.
William S. Stone, Middle & Anderson, Elizabeth F. Bunce, Butler, Wooten, Overby & Cheely, C. Frederick Overby, Patrick A. Dawson, amici curiae.

 In Lloyds America v. Brown, 187 Ga. 240 (200 SE 292) (1938), the entire discussion of the attack on the constitutionality of the statute on equal protection grounds consisted of the following:
The portion of the act must be considered in connection with the entire act of which it is a part, passed in exercise of the police power of the State. When so considered, while dealing with a question of procedure — joinder of causes of action, it does not make an arbitrary and unreasonable classification. . . . [Id. at 243.]
In Harper Motor Lines v. Roling, 218 Ga. 812 (130 SE2d 817) (1963), we held that the decision in Lloyds America, supra, was controlling.