Court Opinion

ID: 9576022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:19:50.970736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:20.672502
License: Public Domain

Webb, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment but find it necessary to state my views separately since the majority opinion gives the impression that an employer whose liability is derivative cannot obtain contribution. I agree that Wages v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 132 Ga. App. 79 (208 SE2d 1) is *463not applicable here because in Wages there were three automobiles involved — one being driven by plaintiff; the second being driven by Bennett, owned by his employer Wages, and insured by Hanover; and the third, which was the uninsured automobile, being driven by Black. Plaintiff obtained judgment against Bennett and Black for their actual negligence, and against Wages under respondeat superior; Hanover paid off on behalf of Wages; and a contribution suit against plaintiffs uninsured motorist carrier was instituted in Wages’ name. We held that "the purpose in providing for uninsured motorist protection was to afford the public generally with the same protection that it would have had if the uninsured motorist had carried the same amount of coverage under a public liability policy issued in his name.” Plaintiffs uninsured motorist carrier was thus viewed as if it were Black’s liability carrier, and in that light was subject to Wages’ claim for contribution. Wages’ liability to plaintiff had been purely derivative, and thus the statement by themajority in the headnote that a vicariously-liable employer cannot have contribution since he is not an actual wrongdoer is incorrect.
In the instant case Thompson, the driver, is Bennett’s counterpart; Liberty Loan, the employer, is Wages’ counterpart; and Reliance, the employer’s insurer, is Hanover’s counterpart. But Black, the uninsured motorist in Wages, has no counterpart here. This leaves Thompson as the only possible party upon whom plaintiffs uninsured motorist coverage could, in legal contemplation, be superimposed for contribution purposes as in Wages. Thus the question for decision — was the vehicle driven by Thompson an "uninsured motor vehicle” within the meaning of the uninsured motorist statute, Code Ann. § 56-407.1?
The statutory definition is "a motor vehicle ... as to which there is (i) no bodily injury liability insurance ...” Code Ann. § 56-407.1 (b). It is my view that while Thompson had not personally procured liability insurance, his vehicle should not be considered uninsured since Liberty Loan was insured against bodily injury liability arising out of Thompson’s negligent acts while operating the vehicle. The parties have stipulated that *464Liberty Loan paid the amounts of the judgments to plaintiffs from the coverage provided it by its bodily injury liability policy with Reliance, and my view is that liability insurance which is applicable to the injuries is tantamount to insurance which is applicable to the vehicle for uninsured motorist purposes. Thus contribution is being disallowed in this case not because Liberty Loan is only vicariously liable, but because Thompson’s vehicle was not an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute.