Tuck v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York

Georgia Court of Appeals April 23, 1974

Tuck v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, 207 S.E.2d 210 (1974)

131 Ga. App. 807; 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1563

Clark, Bell, Quillian

Opinion

Clark, Judge. 1

Is a standard form agreement dealing with *808 workmen’s compensation bearing the board’s approval valid when signed only by the employee and by the employer’s insurance carrier? The answer is "Yes.” The insurer is considered to be the alter ego of its insured, the employer. Mull v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co., 20 Ga. App. 791 (172 SE2d 147); Yancey v. Green, 129 Ga. App. 705 (201 SE2d 162). Additionally, in defining "Employer” the statute provides "If the employer is insured, this term [employer] shall include his insurer as far as applicable.” Code Ann. § 114-101.

Argued April 1, 1974 Decided April 23, 1974 Rehearing denied May 15, 1974 Robert T. Efurd, Jr., W. C. Dominy, for appellant. Charles L. Drew, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

This opinion from one noted for "Legal Logorrhea” *808 is aimed to match those of my colleagues who possess the charism of simplification.

Reference

Full Case Name: TUCK v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK Et Al.
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published