A jury trial was then conducted on plaintiff's tort claim and a verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $370,000. The trial court did not agree and a judgment was awarded to plaintiff for $29,340, comprising statutory damages, attorney fees and punitive damages. MARTA's counsel explained that he did not pay the judgment on behalf of his client based on OCGA § 9-11-54 (b), which provides that a judgment as to fewer than all the claims is not final and is therefore not directly appealable absent an express determination by the trial court "that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." In further support of its position, MARTA presented expert legal testimony to the effect that MARTA's refusal to pay plaintiff's no-fault claim was not in bad faith in light of the non-final judgment determining MARTA's liability to plaintiff for no-fault benefits. At trial, MARTA's attorney stated in his place that MARTA's refusal to pay the judgment on plaintiff's no-fault claim was not in bad faith, but that the judgment was left unsatisfied in contemplation of a direct appeal after adjudication of plaintiff's tort claim. The trial court denied MARTA's motion to dismiss and conducted a bench trial on Count 3 of the complaint. MARTA filed a motion to dismiss Count 3 of plaintiff's complaint, arguing that it was not obligated to satisfy the non-final judgment on plaintiff's no-fault claim before final adjudication of plaintiff's tort claim. MARTA did not satisfy the judgment on plaintiff's no-fault claim within 60 days and plaintiff amended his complaint and added a third count seeking statutory damages against MARTA pursuant to OCGA § 33-34-6 (b) (c). found in favor of on all the remaining issues." The no-fault claim was tried before a jury and the trial court "directed a verdict in favor of Plaintiff in the sum of $2,500.00 medical expense benefit pursuant to the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (OCGA § 33-34-1 et seq.), and the jury. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint and added a second count against MARTA, alleging that MARTA is self-insured, that MARTA failed to pay plaintiff's claim for no-fault benefits under the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act and that more than 60 days has elapsed since MARTA received plaintiff's no-fault claim, thereby subjecting MARTA to statutory penalties in accordance with OCGA § 33-34-6 (b) (c).Ī "CONSENT ORDER OF BIFURCATION" was entered, directing separate trials on plaintiff's tort claim (Count 1) and plaintiff's no-fault claim (Count 2). Defendants MARTA and Hubbard answered *697 and denied the material allegations of the complaint. Federick (plaintiff) brought an action against Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) and David Lee Hubbard (defendant Hubbard), seeking damages which allegedly arose after plaintiff was struck by a MARTA bus that was being operated by defendant Hubbard. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITYĭonald P.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |