The Georgia Supreme Court had some tough questions on what responsibilities an insurer has to its policyholders facing potentially hefty liability and just how precise a plaintiff’s “Holt” settlement demand must be before an insurer is bound to respond.
The closely watched case centers on the use—and purported misuse—of time-limited settlement demands that insurers and defense lawyers say have evolved into “gotcha” bad-faith setups. Alston & Bird partner Andy Tuck, who argued on behalf of First Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia during Tuesday’s arguments, said the demands are designed to “bust policy limits rather than settle the claims.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]