Justices Grill Lawyers Fighting Over 'Gotcha' Bad Faith Insurance Suits
The Georgia Supreme Court must decide what duties an insurer has to try to settle a case with heavy liability.
September 11, 2018 at 04:15 PM
5 minute read
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.”
Those became known as “Holt demands” after the 1992 case in which the Georgia Supreme Court held that, if an insurer knows its insured is liable and the damages likely exceed policy limits, the insurer can be subject to bad faith damages if it fails to settle within those limits.
First Acceptance found itself on the losing end of a $5.4 million judgment after its insured, the at-fault driver, was killed in a five-car wreck. That driver, Ronald Jackson, carried a $25,000 per person, $50,000 per incident policy.
There were multiple claimants with serious injuries, including an injured mother and daughter who rescinded an offer to settle for the available coverage or enter into global settlement talks after the insurer did not respond to two letters the plaintiffs' lawyer faxed on the same day.
In fact, Tuck said, there never was an “offer” to settle, only a demand to know the available insurance coverage and a mention that the injured parties were “interested” in attending a settlement conference.
A separate letter faxed to the insurer at the same time asked for statement of known insurance and gave a 30-day deadline to respond. When it expired, plaintiffs Julie An and Jina Hong sued in DeKalb County State Court.
After the jury awarded more than $5.4 million, the estate of the deceased driver sued First Acceptance for bad faith failure to settle. A DeKalb County judge dismissed the case on summary judgment, ruling there was no clear demand, or time-limited demand. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, saying the issue of whether First Acceptance acted in bad faith should have been left to the jury.
Arguing for the plaintiffs Tuesday, Swope Rodante partner Brandon Cathey argued the two letters, taken together, clearly constituted a time-limited offer to settle for Jackson's policy or to enter into settlement discussions.
Lawyers for both sides faced stiff questioning from Presiding Justice David Nahmias, who asked Tuck whether he was seeking a blanket rule that insurers have no duty to try to settle claims until they've been hit with demand letter threatening suit.
“The insurer's' duty is to act in the best interests of its policyholders,” Nahmias said.
“You're saying your insurance company never, ever has to initiate settlement talks … if you realize the risk of settling or damages is very high?”
Nahmias also asked if the insurer has some duty to to mitigate the damage, even if there is only $50,000 available.
The way to “rein in” abusive and unclear demands is to require a “clear, time-limited policy demand,” said Tuck, who appeared with colleague Kyle Wallace and Dentons attorney Robin Johnson.
Several amicus briefs were filed supporting First Acceptance, including one on behalf of Geico Insurance, whose lawyer, Smith Gambrell & Russell partner and former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, was in the audience. Nahmias noted the interest.
“I know you've got a lots of amici,” he said, but the “fundamental common-law duty is to give maximum benefit to your insured.”
“You may be right in this case, but you want a blanket rule that you must always get a demand or you win,” Nahmias added.
Cathey said that, in a case such as the one at hand, First Acceptance knew its policy limits were going to be eaten up, and it had a duty to try to reach out and proactively protect its insured.
Nahmias drilled Cathey on how the two letters could be interpreted as a time-limited settlement demand, since one only expressed an interest in a settlement conference and the other requested insurance information, albeit with a 30-day limit.
“Could they have accepted [the offer] in 60 days in they'd provided the insurance information,” Nahmias asked.
If so, he said, “there was not a time-limited demand.”
The issue of whether there was a time-limited offer still failed to address First Acceptance's duty to “fulfill its promise to try and settle the case,” said Cathey, appearing with Swope Rodante colleague Brent Steinberg.
Tuck rose again to say that First Acceptance had, indeed, tried to initiate the global settlement talks, but the plaintiffs in this case refused to participate, electing to sue instead.
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move: Hunton Andrews Kurth Practice Leader Named Charlotte Managing Partner
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
Atlanta Attorneys Rely on Google Earth, YouTube for Evidence in $6M Faulty Guardrail Settlement
Trending Stories
- 1Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 2People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 3How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
- 4Bar Report - Dec. 23
- 5Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250