Third party beneficiary contracts in Georgia are tricky. The closing of Grady Hospital Dialysis Center and the subsequent litigation regarding the effect of that closing on undocumented immigrants illustrates some of the obstacles that face third parties who have beneficiary rights under a contract in Georgia.
In October 2009 Grady Hospital closed its Dialysis Center and while those who qualified for Medicaid were transferred to another service provider, undocumented immigrants ran into a serious obstacle: they were named as beneficiaries to a contract between Grady Hospital and an external dialysis service provider. That contract stated that certain immigrants were entitled to dialysis care through September 2010.
Nevertheless, the immigrants had a legal claim against Grady Hospital if the contract terms made for their benefit were not upheld. The immigrants’ counsel eventually filed suit claiming, amongst other things, breach of contract.
In Georgia, third parties have a right to sue the “promisor” under a contract intended to benefit them. The issue then becomes, as the issue is for the immigrants in the Grady Hospital situation: who is a “promisor”? The answer depends on a thorough reading and understanding of both the contract at issue and the law. For example, is the contract unilateral or bilateral? And despite the language of the contract, what is the nature of the contract and the intent of the persons who made the contract? And, how identifiable are you, as a person intended to benefit from the contract, within the contract’s express language? These are only some of the important and complex questions that must be answered if you want to win your case.
Contact us: the Oinonen Law Group LLC can maximize your position related to a third party beneficiary claim for or against you, and can assist in resolving the complicated issues involved in this matter.