Search form

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

By Todd Van Dyke, Justin R. Barnes and Dania L. Haider
  • 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 Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

March 9, 2018

Calculating Overtime Value of Flat-Sum Bonus Must Be Based on Actual Non-Overtime Hours Worked, California High Court Holds

March 9, 2018

The California Supreme Court has held that, under state law, when an employee earns a flat sum bonus during a pay period, the overtime pay rate will be calculated using the actual number of non-overtime hours worked by the employee during the pay period. Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 1123 (Cal. Mar. 5, 2018). In so... Read More

March 8, 2018

Colorado Law Claims for Unpaid Wages Limited to Two or Three Years Prior to Termination

March 8, 2018

Under the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA), a terminated employee’s right to seek unpaid wages or compensation at termination is subject to the two- or three-year statute of limitations found in the CWCA, the Colorado Supreme Court has held. Hernandez v. Domenico Farms, Inc., 2018 CO 15 (Mar. 5, 2018). The Court also clarified that the... Read More

March 5, 2018

Massachusetts AG’s Office Issues Guidance on Equal Pay Law Set to Take Effect in July

March 5, 2018

On March 1, 2018, the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General issued its much-anticipated guidance on the state’s new pay equity law, set to take effect on July 1, 2018. The Massachusetts pay equity legislation amended the state’s Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA). Among other things, the amendment changed the definition of... Read More

Related Practices