State Justices Let Stand Ruling That Insurer's Demand for 'Clarification' Is a Counteroffer
Liberty Mutual Insurance had argued that it accepted a presuit demand for its $100,000 policy limits, but only sought "clarification" that the at-fault drive's parents would also be absolved of fault.
December 26, 2019 at 04:14 PM
6 minute read
The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an insurer's appeal of a ruling that its demand for "clarification" regarding a liability release constituted a counteroffer to a settlement, leaving it open to claims for bad-faith failure to settle.
The closely watched case means a driver who suffered serious injuries can continue to pursue her case in Cherokee County Superior Court, where a judge previously ruled that Liberty Mutual Insurance made a legally binding settlement offer for its $100,000 policy limits.
"This is a very significant denial, because there's been an effort by plaintiffs' lawyers to say, 'Here's our demand, you must say a, b, and c to accept.' Over the years, courts have gotten increasingly aggressive about what a counteroffer is," said Matt Dwyer, who represents the injured driver.
"This is a big step for the Supreme Court to say they won't just let insurers say 'Here's our demand,'" and plaintiffs must accept it, said the Dwyer Law Group principal.
"My client suffered horrific injuries," said Dwyer, who represents Patricia Carr with James Neuberger of Neuberger Law and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore partner Michael Terry, who was brought on board to help with the appeal.
The decision also leaves in place a Court of Appeals ruling that the at-fault driver's parents cannot be held vicariously liable.
The defendant driver, Jenny Yim, is represented by J. Robb Cruser and Kathleen Hurley of Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet. Cruser did not respond to requests for comment.
As detailed in the Court of Appeals opinion and other filings, Yim suddenly turned left in front of Carr's BMW 330 sedan causing the wreck. The crash left Carr, now 65, with a fractured spine that required surgery to remove fragments of vertebrae and insert a steel rod and cage.
Carr's medical bills totaled more than $500,000, and Dwyer said she is still unable to walk any distance without pain.
Yim's mother had co-signed for her 2014 Hyundai Sonata, and she was included on the Liberty Mutual policy carried by her parents, John and Bok Yim.
Shortly after the wreck, Carr's lawyers sent a letter to Liberty Mutual demanding the policy's $100,000 limit within 30 days.
The letter specified that only Yim would be released from liability, and included a release form to be filled out and returned.
"We are not aware of any other persons or entities that might be liable for Ms. Carr's injuries," the letter said, "and any request for a release of other persons or entities that are or may be liable will constitute a rejection of this offer and a counter-offer to resolve claims against other potentially liable parties."
Two weeks later, Liberty Mutual's representative wrote back: "First, we agree that as consideration for the payment of $100,000, Patricia Carr will execute a limited release and settlement agreement resulting from the April 14, 2016, date of loss. … We have previously forwarded our policy declarations to you, which indicate the named insureds under the policy as John Yim and Bok Yim, with Jenny Yim being a listed driver under the policy. Your proposed limited liability release does not list our named insureds John Yim or Bok Yim."
The letter requested "clarification from you that Ms. Carr does not intend to assert claims against the named insureds under the applicable policy."
"To reiterate, both our discussions, as well as this letter, are in no way intended to be either a rejection of your demand or a counter-offer," it said. "Rather, it is Liberty Mutual's intent to accept your settlement demand unequivocally and without variance."
Dwyer responded that the response did not constitute acceptance of her offer "and was a counteroffer because it sought a limited liability release that included Yim's parents," and that Carr refused to accept it.
Carr sued Yim for negligence in Cherokee County State Court, naming her parents as co-defendants under a theory of vicarious liability.
Yim filed a motion asking the court to enforce the settlement agreement, and her parents filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims against them.
Judge Michelle Homier granted the motion to enforce the settlement agreement but denied the motion to dismiss the claims against the parents. Both sides appealed.
In an April opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Anne Elizabeth Barnes said Homier erred in ruling that there had been a settlement "because there was no acceptance and meeting of the minds regarding who would be released and/or because Liberty Mutual's response letter constituted a counteroffer."
"Given this record, a reasonable person in the position of Liberty Mutual would have understood that Carr considered the particular release form attached to the settlement offer to be essential to her willingness to settle her bodily injury claims and that she would not agree to a settlement that released any parties other than Yim," Barnes' opinion said.
The opinion upheld Homier's ruling that Yim's parents were not responsible for her actions while driving the car.
When the lower appellate court released its opinion, Carr's lawyer, Neuberger, said the vicarious liability ruling was of little importance to the case, and that it was only the insurer's insistence that Yim's parents be released from liability that raised the issue to begin with.
"When Liberty Mutual brought their names up we began to wonder if there was some reason for it," Neuberger said then. "We were concerned that the mother and father might have some additional insurance that hadn't been disclosed."
The case is Yim v. Carr, No. S19C1220
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 AllTrying to Reason With Hurricane Season: Mediating First Party Property Insurance Claims
'I Thank You': Attorney Leverages Daily Report Article to Turn $42K Offer Into $600K Settlement
7 minute readFirst Came the SEC, Now Investors Raise Allegations Against Acadia Healthcare
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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