Mr. Appling sued Mr. Benton, claiming that he was entitled to recover “the full value of his past medical expenses in an amount of $107,455.43.”

The jury awarded Mr. Appling $192,000, but found that he was five percent contributorily negligent. Accordingly, the trial court subtracted five percent of the verdict to account for Mr. Appling's contributory negligence ($9,600), as well as the $25,000 payment that Mr. Appling had received from Mr. Benton's insurance company. The total judgment amount that Mr. Appling received was $157,400.

Mr. Appling's insurer, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, paid this judgment in full, and also filed a motion for entry of satisfaction of judgment, informing the court that it had paid $22,490.76 for Mr. Appling's medical expenses before the trial under the medical payments coverage in Mr. Appling's insurance policies.

Attached to State Farm's motion was a payment log reflecting medical payments that State Farm had made both to Mr. Appling and on his behalf, in connection with Mr. Appling's insurance claim.

State Farm also submitted a copy of a “Car Policy” booklet, which contained Mr. Appling's policies for medical payments coverage, as well as uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) coverage.

The UM coverage language contained a non-duplication clause that stated that any amounts State Farm paid as expenses under Mr. Appling's medical payments coverage would not be paid again under Mr. Appling's UM coverage. Thus, State Farm requested that the trial court enter a satisfaction of judgment reflecting payment of $134,909.24, to account for the medical payments that State Farm had made before the trial.

The trial court ordered that the judgment be marked as satisfied based on State Farm's payment of $134,909.24, and directed that Mr. Appling return $22,490.76 to State Farm, which Mr. Appling's counsel had been holding in trust until the trial court decided the issue.

The trial court found that (1) because Mr. Appling presented evidence at trial of incurred medical expenses and sought recovery to that effect, there was a presumption that the verdict included an award for incurred medical expenses; and (2) Mr. Appling's insurance policies with State Farm prevented the duplication of benefits that Mr. Appling had received under his medical payments coverage.

Mr. Appling appealed, arguing that because the jury's verdict form did not delineate how much of the recovery represented incurred medical expenses, it was uncertain whether the verdict encompassed the $22,790.76 in medical payments.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed.

In its decision, the appellate court rejected Mr. Appling's contention that the jury's use of a general verdict form barred State Farm from receiving the offset. The appellate court reasoned that, given the presumption that the jury's verdict was based on a fair consideration of the matters presented at trial, it presumed that the jury's verdict of $192,000 included damages for medical expenses for which State Farm already had compensated Mr. Appling, and a set off was “necessary to avoid a double recovery.”

Therefore, the appellate court ruled, the trial court had not erred in applying an offset when entering the satisfaction of judgment.

Accordingly, the appellate court concluded, the trial court had correctly ruled that State Farm was entitled to the offset in the amount of $22,490.76, representing the pretrial medical payments that it had made to Mr. Appling and on his behalf.

The case is Appling v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. A18A1523 (Ga. Ct.App. Jan. 11, 2019).