Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Performance Auto Collision Center Incorporated v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company
Citations: 342 Ga. App. 554; 803 S.E.2d 798; 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 377; 2017 WL 3430227Docket: A17A1041
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; August 10, 2017; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Motions for reconsideration must be submitted to the clerk’s office within ten days post-decision. In the appellate case A17A1041, Performance Auto Collision Center, Inc. appeals a trial court ruling that granted summary judgment to Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company regarding a workers' compensation policy for the period from February 2013 to February 2014. Performance Auto disputes a reclassification of its workers that resulted in an increased premium of $27,497.38 after Bridgefield’s final audit. Initially, workers were classified as clerical or auto body repair for premium assessment. The policy allowed for the final premium to be adjusted based on actual payroll and classifications determined by an end-of-term audit. Performance Auto contests the reclassification and claims it overpaid monthly premiums due to a third-party error, seeking either a refund or a set-off against any amounts owed to Bridgefield. Bridgefield filed for summary judgment based on its audit findings and a classification report from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), asserting that front office workers should be classified as auto body repair rather than clerical. Additionally, Bridgefield moved to dismiss Performance Auto’s counterclaim, citing a lack of relationship with the third party involved in the alleged overpayment. Performance Auto countered by referencing an alternative audit from another insurer that supported its classification claim. The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court's summary judgment. Performance Auto presented affidavits from owner Sal Akturk and insurance account representative Allison Wooten, indicating that the job duties, descriptions, functions, and physical layout of its employees remained consistent from the 2013-2014 Policy Period through the Subsequent Audit. Wooten, familiar with the business's operations, supported her affidavit with photographs showing the separation of the front office from the repair area, countering findings in the NCCI report. Performance Auto contended that this evidence raised a jury issue regarding employee classifications as clerical or body repair workers. Despite Bridgefield's argument that the Subsequent Audit was irrelevant due to differences in policy periods and insurers, the affidavits demonstrated the stability of Performance Auto's operations during both periods. The court found that the differing classifications of employees by the two audits created a factual dispute for the jury to resolve. Consequently, the trial court's order granting Bridgefield’s summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The auditor, Leigh Freeman, was noted as qualified, and the NCCI report's focus was primarily on office layout rather than employee duties, which were deemed to indicate a lack of clerical positions.