Search form

Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies Insurance Company is Not ‘Financial Institution’ in Garnishment Law

By Todd Van Dyke and Justin R. Barnes
  • February 20, 2018

An insurance company named as a garnishee in a garnishment action is not a “financial institution” under Georgia’s garnishment statute when the garnishment is seeking earnings owed to its current or former employees.

May 2016 Amendment

Apparently responding to a federal judge’s 2015 ruling that portions of Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statute (O.C.G.A. § 18-4-1 et seq.) were unconstitutional, the state legislature amended the garnishment statute effective May 12, 2016. Under the amended statute, a different form is required for general garnishments, which provide for a 29-day garnishment period, than for garnishments on a financial institution, which provide for a five-day garnishment period. O.C.G.A. § 18-4-4(c)(2) and (4); see also O.C.G.A. §§ 18-4-71, 18-4-74 through 18-4-77. The apparent aim of the amendment was to provide added protections to garnishment actions directed at garnishing bank accounts.

Case Background

In October 2015, Harold Blach filed a garnishment action against Aflac in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, seeking to collect a judgment of nearly $160,000 that he had obtained against Sal Diaz-Verson, a former Aflac employee.

Blach was seeking to garnish funds that the company periodically pays to Diaz-Verson based on his former employment with the company. Blach used the garnishment form applicable to general garnishments, but Diaz-Verson had argued that he should have used the form applicable to “financial institutions.”

The judge in the case then certified the following question to the Georgia Supreme Court: “[w]hether an insurance company is a ‘financial institution’ under the Georgia garnishment statute when the insurance company is garnished based on earnings that it owes the defendant as the defendant’s employer.”

Georgia Supreme Court Decision

On February 5, 2018, the Georgia Supreme Court answered the question in the negative. A plain meaning interpretation of the amended statute, the Court said, suggests that an insurance company is a financial institution for the purposes of Georgia’s garnishment statute and that the garnishment period for any action against it is five, instead of 29, days.

In answering this question, however, the Court regarded the definition of a “financial institution” in the context of the garnishment statutory scheme as a whole. The Court concluded that the plain meaning interpretation of the amended statute was not the legislature’s intent. Rather, the Court determined it is clear that a “financial institution” as defined in O.C.G.A. § 18-4-1(4) is limited to entities that are “held out to the public as a place of deposit of funds or medium of savings or collective investment” and are garnished in that capacity.

Therefore, the Court ruled, an insurance company is not a “financial institution” for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 18-4-4(c)(2) when the insurance company is a garnishee based on earnings that it owes to a current or former employee.

Accordingly, financial institutions should treat garnishment actions against their employees as regular wage garnishments that are not subject to the special “financial institution” restrictions.

If you have any questions about garnishment law in Georgia or other developments affecting employers, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 15, 2019

EPLI Trends, Sexual Harassment Claims, and Planning for 2019

May 15, 2019

As workplace laws continue to evolve, the potential risk exposure is increasing. Jackson Lewis prepared this trends overview to help assess the current workplace law landscape in the #MeToo era and the wave of agency charges, latest claims, and new laws.  Highlights include: Pay Equity Lawsuits: The Next Wave of Litigation... Read More

May 10, 2019

Commission-Only Inside Salespersons are Entitled to Overtime and Sunday Pay Under Massachusetts Law

May 10, 2019

Adhering to the “plain and ordinary” language of the state’s overtime statute and related regulations, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that inside sales employees paid on a 100-percent-commission basis are additionally entitled to pay for overtime hours worked and premium pay for work on Sundays. Sullivan v. Sleepy’s... Read More

May 7, 2019

California’s ‘ABC’ Test for Independent Contractor Analysis to be Applied Retroactively

May 7, 2019

California employers were dealt another setback in responding to claims of misclassification of independent contractor status for violations of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders (IWC Wage Orders). Noting California’s “basic legal tradition” that “judicial decisions are given retroactive effect,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for... Read More

Related Practices