Court Opinion

ID: 9719511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:55:04.155357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.969885
License: Public Domain

BENHAM, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent because I believe appellant is obligated to pay the hospital lien for treatment appellee received for injuries caused by the tortfeasor. OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (1) (D) (ii) (2000) provides that
available coverages under the bodily injury liability insurance and property damage liability insurance coverages on [an under-insured or uninsured] motor vehicle shall be the limits of coverage less any amounts by which the maximum amounts payable under such limits of coverage have, by reason of payment of other claims or otherwise, been reduced below the limits of coverage. . ..
Inasmuch as there is a valid hospital lien in the case at bar, it triggers appellee’s UM coverage limits because the lien lessens the tortfeasor’s liability limits. Id. Since the lien in this case has not yet been paid and appellee has already received all the funds from the tortfeasor’s liability carrier, I believe appellant is obligated to issue a check to the hospital for its lien. See Chatham County Hosp. Auth. v. Barnes, 226 Ga. 508 (175 SE2d 854) (1970) (a hospital debt arising out of an auto accident may be paid from UM funds). Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Hunstein joins in this dissent.
*324Decided November 30, 2010
Reconsideration denied December 14, 2010.
Harper, Waldon & Craig, Trevor G. Hiestand, for appellant.
F. Glenn Moffett, Jr., for appellee.