Tuck v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

Full title: TUCK v. FIDELITY CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 23, 1974

207 S.E.2d 210 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)

207 S.E.2d 210

Opinion

49229.

ARGUED APRIL 1, 1974.

DECIDED APRIL 23, 1974. REHEARING DENIED MAY 15, 1974.

Workmen's compensation. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Allen.

Robert T. Efurd, Jr., W. C. Dominy, for appellant.

Charles L. Drew, for appellees.

CLARK, Judge.[fn1] [fn1] This opinion from one noted for "Legal Logorrhea" is aimed to match those of my colleagues who possess the charisma of simplification.

Is a standard form agreement dealing with 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 S.E.2d 147); Yancey v. Green, 129 Ga. App. 705 ( 201 S.E.2d 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.

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

ARGUED APRIL 1, 1974 — DECIDED APRIL 23, 1974 — REHEARING DENIED MAY 15, 1974 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.