Ellington, Justice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified to this Court three questions of Georgia law relating to a lawsuit brought in federal district court by Fife Whiteside, the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Bonnie Winslett. See Whiteside v. GEICO Indem. Co., 977 F3d 1014, 1022 (11th Cir. 2020). Whiteside sued GEICO to recover the value of Winslett’s failure-to- settle tort claim against GEICO so that the bankruptcy estate could pay creditor Terry Guthrie, who was injured in an accident caused by Winslett. See Whiteside v. GEICO Indem. Co., 352 FSupp.3d 1257 (M.D. Ga. 2018). The questions certified to us by the Eleventh Circuit, recounted at the end of Division 1 below, ask us to analyze how Georgia law applies to an unusual set of circumstances at the intersection of contract and tort law, circumstances implicating both Winslett’s duty to give GEICO notice of suit and GEICO’s duty to settle the claim brought against Winslett. As explained more fully below, we are unable to give unqualified “yes” or “no” answers to two of the certified questions as they have been posed; rather, we can answer the questions only in the context of the circumstances of this particular case.[1] 1. Factual and procedural background. On February 26, 2012, while driving Karen Griffis’s Ford Explorer, Winslett struck Guthrie, who was riding a bicycle. It is undisputed that Winslett was at fault. Guthrie received emergency medical treatment for his injuries. When his pain persisted, Guthrie returned to the hospital for further treatment. When the accident occurred, Griffis’s Ford Explorer was insured by GEICO, and Winslett was a permissive driver and thus an “insured” covered by the policy.[2] The policy provided $30,000 of coverage per person of bodily injury liability coverage. GEICO notified Winslett in a letter that, “[b]ased on the evidence we have gathered, we are responsible for the accident. Mr. Guthrie was injured in this accident and we will be handling this injury directly with” his attorney. Winslett was not the policy holder, and she did not have a copy of Griffis’s policy. GEICO did not ask Winslett to forward to it any accident-related legal documents, even though its claims manual advised its claims examiners to do so. Nor did GEICO inform Winslett that she had an obligation pursuant to the policy to notify GEICO if she was sued. On May 15, 2012, Guthrie’s lawyer sent GEICO a letter demanding that GEICO tender within 30 days the $30,000 policy limit to settle the liability claim against Winslett. The letter informed GEICO that, as of May 15, Guthrie’s medical expenses exceeded $10,000 and that he would require additional treatment. On May 23, GEICO rejected the demand and made a counteroffer of $12,409. When GEICO made the counteroffer, it had been informed that Guthrie’s medical expenses were closer to $15,000. Guthrie’s attorney did not respond to the counteroffer. GEICO’s claims adjuster continued her efforts, through letters and phone calls, to contact Guthrie’s attorney about a settlement. She first followed up on GEICO’s counteroffer about a week after it was made, calling Guthrie’s attorney and leaving a voicemail when she got no answer. About a month later, the adjuster called again and left another voicemail. A few weeks later, the adjuster once more called the attorney’s office and was told that both the attorney and his paralegal were unavailable. Guthrie’s attorney did not respond to those calls and letters. On May 29, six days after GEICO had rejected the settlement demand, Guthrie filed suit against Winslett. Guthrie’s attorney did not inform GEICO of the suit. Although Winslett received the summons and complaint, she did not inform GEICO or forward the suit papers to it. Instead, she called Guthrie’s law firm, and a paralegal instructed her to contact GEICO. Rather than doing as instructed, Winslett discarded the summons and complaint. She later explained that she did not notify GEICO of the suit because she thought that GEICO was already handling it based on its communication with her. Winslett did not answer the complaint or appear in court. On August 1, following a hearing, the Superior Court of Muscogee County entered a default judgment of $2,916,204 against Winslett. On August 8, Guthrie’s attorney informed GEICO of the judgment. GEICO, on Winslett’s behalf, filed a motion to set aside the judgment.[3] On November 30, after an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment. Winslett v. Guthrie, 326 Ga. App. 747 (755 SE2d 287) (2014). After Winslett had exhausted her appellate remedies, Guthrie sought to collect on his judgment. Guthrie forced Winslett into involuntary bankruptcy by filing a petition pursuant to Chapter 7 of the federal Bankruptcy Code. On May 22, 2015, following a hearing, the bankruptcy court granted Guthrie’s motion for summary judgment and adjudicated Winslett a Chapter 7 debtor. On September 10, the bankruptcy trustee, Whiteside, moved the bankruptcy court for an order appointing a personal injury attorney to represent the bankruptcy estate in investigating potential failure- to-settle litigation against GEICO.[4] On September 14, the bankruptcy court granted the motion and appointed Guthrie’s personal injury attorney to represent the bankruptcy estate. On September 12, 2016, Whiteside filed suit against GEICO in the federal district court for the Middle District of Georgia, alleging that GEICO negligently or in bad faith failed to settle Guthrie’s claim against Winslett, which resulted in a judgment against Winslett in excess of the policy limits.[5] GEICO filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law during trial and renewed the motion after the jury returned a verdict in Winslett’s favor. In those motions, GEICO argued that, pursuant to its policy’s notice provision and OCGA § 33-7-15 (b), it was relieved “of any liability to pay any judgment” because it had never received notice of the underlying personal injury suit. GEICO also argued that it could not be the proximate cause of the default judgment against Winslett, given Winslett’s failure to notify it of the lawsuit. GEICO further argued that it was unfair and unconstitutional to use the default judgment as the measure of damages when GEICO did not have an opportunity to contest Guthrie’s damages in the underlying suit. The district court was not persuaded by any of those arguments. Although the district court agreed that both GEICO’s policy and OCGA § 33-7-15 (b) required Winslett to notify GEICO of Guthrie’s suit, it ruled that Winslett’s failure to give notice did not prevent her or the bankruptcy trustee from recovering in tort for GEICO’s negligent or bad faith failure to settle under circumstances where GEICO was a proximate cause of Winslett’s failure to give notice of the lawsuit. See Whiteside, 352 FSupp.3d at 1264-1265 (II). The district court ruled that proximate cause was a question of fact and that some evidence supported a finding that GEICO’s conduct contributed to the circumstances that led to the default judgment against Winslett. See id. at 1259-1264 (I). In addition to instructing the jury on the insurer’s settlement duties, the court instructed the jury that, if GEICO was responsible for the ensuing default judgment against Winslett, GEICO would be responsible for paying her compensatory damages. See id. at 1260-1262 (I). The court also used the $2.9 million default judgment as the appropriate measure of damages, rejecting GEICO’s argument that holding it liable for damages obtained in the underlying suit would violate due process when it had no opportunity to defend Winslett against Guthrie’s claims. See id. at 1266-1267 (III). The jury ultimately found that Winslett was 30 percent liable for the default judgment against her and that GEICO was 70 percent liable. The final judgment against GEICO, including interest, exceeded $2.7 million. See id. at 1258-1259. GEICO appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which certified to this Court the following questions: When an insurer has no notice of a lawsuit against its insured, does OCGA § 33-7-15 and a virtually identical insuring provision relieve the insurer of liability from a follow-on suit for bad faith? If the notice provisions do not bar liability for a bad- faith claim, can an insured sue the insurer for bad faith when, after the insurer refused to settle but before judgment was entered against the insured, the insured lost coverage for failure to comply with a notice provision? Does a party have the right to contest actual damages in a follow-on suit for bad faith if that party had no prior notice of or participation in the original suit? 2. Background principles of law. Under Georgia law, an insurer and an insured owe each other many post-loss duties that arise from their contractual relationship. Some of these duties are implied; others are found in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. For example, “every contract implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing which modifies and becomes part of the contract itself[.]” (Citation omitted.) Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 297 Ga. 38, 42 (771 SE2d 864) (2015).[6] Insurance policies also contain express terms imposing obligations on the parties to the contract, which may include the insured’s duty to give the insurer notice of a claim and proof of loss,[7] the insured’s duty to give notice of suit and to forward suit papers to the insurer,[8] the insured’s duty to cooperate with the insurer in defending the claim,[9] the insurer’s duty to actually defend the claim,[10] the insurer’s duty to investigate and to settle covered policy claims by its insured,[11] and the insurer’s duty to inform the insured as to denials or disclaimers of coverage.[12] See generally Steven Plitt et al., Couch on Insurance, §§ 186-203 (3d ed. 2020) (discussing post-loss rights and duties). Although the questions posed to us by the Eleventh Circuit focus on the insured’s duty to notify the insurer of suit and the insurer’s duty to settle a meritorious, covered claim, we are mindful that these duties are part of a larger bundle of duties. Those duties are often interrelated, may implicate or overlap with other duties, and they may derive from different sources, including statutory law or the express terms or implied covenants of the contract. For example, although an insurer’s duty to accept a reasonable settlement offer may be written into the terms of an insurance contract, an insurer’s duty to settle also arises from and is included within the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in every insurance contract. See Piedmont Office, 297 Ga. at 42 (“insurance policy’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing includes insurer’s duty to accept [a] reasonable settlement” (citation omitted)). Whiteside’s lawsuit alleged that GEICO breached its duty to settle a covered claim for which it had accepted liability. Whiteside asserted that, due to GEICO’s negligent or bad faith failure to settle, Guthrie had obtained a default judgment against Winslett in excess of the policy limits. Based on these allegations, Whiteside claimed that GEICO’s negligent or bad faith failure to settle Guthrie’s personal injury claim against Winslett proximately caused damages to her of over $2.9 million, the amount of the default judgment entered against her in Guthrie’s suit. Although the claim asserted by Whiteside on behalf of Winslett arises from a contractual relationship between insured and insurer, the claim asserts extra-contractual liability and sounds in tort. See Canal Indem. Co. v. Greene, 265 Ga. App. 67, 73 (3) (593 SE2d 41) (2003) (“A claim for bad-faith failure to settle sounds in tort and involves, at least in part, a claim that the insurer’s conduct exposed the insured’s personal property to loss.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). Regardless of the type of coverage at issue, the unreasonableness of the insurer’s conduct is at the heart of a negligent or bad faith failure-to-settle claim, and the reasonableness of the insurer’s actions or decisions must be judged at the time they were taken or made. See, e.g., First Acceptance v. Hughes, 305 Ga. 489, 492-493 (1) (826 SE2d 75) (2019). (“[A]n insurer’s duty to settle arises when the injured party presents a valid offer to settle within the insured’s policy limits.” (citation omitted)); Fortner v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co, 286 Ga. 189, 190 (686 SE2d 93) (2009) (Whether an insurance company acted in “bad faith in refusing to settle depends on whether the insurance company acted reasonably in responding to a settlement offer[.]” (citation and punctuation omitted)). The elements of a negligent or bad faith failure to settle a claim are straightforward: “[T]he insured may sue the insurer for failure to settle only when the insurer had a duty to settle the case, breached that duty, and its breach proximately caused damage to the insured beyond the damages, if any, contemplated by the insurance contract.” Delancy v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 947 F2d 1536, 1545-1547 (11th Cir. 1991). As this Court has explained: An insurance company may be liable for the excess judgment entered against its insured based on the insurer’s bad faith or negligent refusal to settle a personal claim within the policy limits. An insurer is negligent in failing to settle if the ordinarily prudent insurer would consider choosing to try the case created an unreasonable risk. The rationale is that the interests of the insurer and insured diverge when a plaintiff offers to settle a claim for the limits of the insurance policy. An insurance company’s bad faith in refusing to settle depends on whether the insurance company acted reasonably in responding to a settlement offer, bearing in mind that, in deciding whether to settle, the insurer must give the insured’s interests the same consideration that it gives its own. Generally, it is for the jury to decide whether the insurer, in view of the existing circumstances, has accorded the insured the same faithful consideration it gives its own interest. (Citations, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) First Acceptance, 305 Ga. at 492 (1). In its defense, GEICO argued, among other things, that under the plain language of the insurance policy[13] and the plain language of § 33-7-15, Winslett had a duty to send GEICO the summons and complaint from Guthrie’s lawsuit, and she breached that duty. Her noncompliance with these notice requirements, GEICO argued, relieved it of its obligation to defend her or to pay any judgment on her behalf. OCGA § 33-7-15 provides, in pertinent part: No motor vehicle liability insurance policy covering a motor vehicle principally garaged or principally used in this state shall be issued, delivered or issued for delivery, or renewed in this state unless such policy contains provisions or has an endorsement thereto which specifically requires the insured to send his insurer, as soon as practicable after the receipt thereof, a copy of every summons or other process relating to the coverage under the policy and to cooperate otherwise with the insurer in connection with the defense of any action or threatened action covered under the policy. Noncompliance by the insured with this required provision or endorsement shall constitute a breach of the insurance contract which, if prejudicial to the insurer, shall relieve the insurer of its obligation to defend its insureds under the policy and of any liability to pay any judgment or other sum on behalf of its insureds.[14] Winslett’s failure to notify GEICO of Guthrie’s suit and to send it the suit papers, GEICO argued, barred Whiteside’s failure-to-settle claim as a matter of law. GEICO further contended that allowing the jury to use the default excess judgment against Winslett as the measure of damages in the failure-to-settle suit violated its right to due process because it had no notice and opportunity to contest the damages in the underlying suit against Winslett. Under Georgia law, the common law tort of negligent or bad faith failure to settle provides that the insured “is entitled as a matter of law to recover damages equal to the amount by which the judgment exceeds policy coverage,” and characterizes this measure of damages as compensatory and liquidated. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brightman, 256 Ga. App. 451, 455-456 (3) (568 SE2d 498) (2002) (“Where, as here, these are the only damages sought, damages are liquidated. . . . Where the amount of damages recoverable appears from the undisputed evidence to be certain, it is proper for the court to direct the verdict.” (citations and punctuation omitted)).[15] As in Georgia, a majority of jurisdictions have adopted the principle that, “if the insurer’s breach of the duty to make a reasonable settlement decision causes an excess judgment against the insured, the insured is entitled to recover from the insurer, in addition to the policy limit, the difference between the policy limit and the underlying judgment.” Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance § 27, Reporter’s Notes (a). Indeed, “[t]his is the paradigmatic measure of damages in a breach-of-settlement-duty lawsuit against an insurer.” Id. With these relevant background principles of law in mind, we turn to the questions posed by the Eleventh Circuit. 3. Analysis. (a) When an insurer has no notice of a lawsuit against its insured, does OCGA § 33-7-15 and a virtually identical insuring provision relieve the insurer of liability from a follow-on suit for bad faith [failure to settle]? The answer to the first certified question is a qualified “no.” Under the circumstances presented in the certified record, neither OCGA § 33-7-15 nor the related endorsement in the insurance policy relieve GEICO of liability for the bad faith or negligent failure-to- settle claim brought against it. At issue in the matter before us is not whether Winslett breached a condition precedent to coverage under the contract of insurance. Clearly she did. Rather, in this tort action, the question is whether Winslett’s breach was an intervening act sufficient to break the causal chain between GEICO’s unreasonable rejection of Guthrie’s settlement demand and the excess default judgment entered against Winslett. The answer to this question turns on whether the facts of the case supported a finding that GEICO reasonably should have foreseen Winslett’s breach and the consequences flowing from it.[16] In its order on GEICO’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, the district court found that the jury had sufficient evidence from which to find that GEICO reasonably should have foreseen Winslett’s breach: [GEICO] knew that Winslett was not the named insured on its policy and that she likely would not have a copy of the policy. It also knew that she had been cited for driving without a license, and through minimal investigation could have concluded that she did not have a driver’s license. [GEICO] also had information reasonably available to it that Winslett was not stable, and that she lived in an unrentable apartment with no electricity and no furniture except for a mattress on the floor. [GEICO] had information available to it that should have put it on notice of Winslett’s unreliability and lack of sophistication, which would lead a reasonable insurance company to conclude that such a person may not notify it of a lawsuit or respond to one served upon her. Remarkably, no evidence was produced at trial that [GEICO] ever explicitly informed Winslett that she should notify it if she was sued. Winslett testified that she did nothing after being served with the suit because she thought [GEICO] was handling it based on its prior contact with her. Notably, [GEICO's] own claims manual recognizes that[,] notwithstanding the notice requirements in the policy, it should [anticipate] that some insureds may not notify [GEICO] of a lawsuit and [that GEICO's] employees should take precautions[.[17]] Nevertheless, GEICO argues that, pursuant to the plain language of OCGA § 33-7-15 (b), Winslett’s failure to notify it of Guthrie’s lawsuit relieved it “of any liability to pay any judgment or other sum on behalf of its insureds.” GEICO argues that the phrase “any judgment” would necessarily include a judgment obtained by or on behalf of an insured against an insurer alleging a negligent or bad faith failure to settle. This argument is without merit. OCGA § 33-7-15 (b), which concerns motor vehicle liability policies, codifies a principle of contract law applicable to most insurance policies: Generally, if an insured breaches a condition precedent to receiving a benefit under the insurance policy, the insurer is relieved of its obligation to provide that benefit to its insured.[18] Although this Code section provides that the insured’s breach of notice and cooperation duties relieves the insurer of coverage and defense obligations under the policy, subject to certain exceptions, it does not provide that the insurer is relieved of liability for tort claims that may arise out of the contractual relationship, and that is apparent from the plain language of the statute. OCGA § 33-7-15 (a) requires the insured to send the insurer “every summons or other process relating to the coverage under the policy and to cooperate otherwise with the insurer in connection with the defense of any action or threatened action covered under the policy.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Code section further provides that the insured’s breach of these contractual duties relieves the insurer of its responsibility to defend such a covered suit or to pay any judgment “on behalf of its insured. (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 13-7-15 (b). It is clear from this language that the duties and obligations imposed by the statute and the required endorsement apply when a suit is brought against the insured for losses covered under the policy for which the insurer would be obligated to pay on behalf of the insured for the insured’s liability to another. Whiteside’s suit does not relate to a liability claim under the policy; rather, it is a tort claim that arises from the contractual relationship. Whiteside’s claim is not for damages resulting from a covered loss; rather, it seeks damages for a breach of GEICO’s duty to settle. And it does not seek payment on behalf of Winslett for a judgment she owes to a plaintiff who successfully sued her for a covered loss; rather, the suit seeks payment to Winslett’s bankruptcy estate for damages Winslett incurred as a proximate cause of GEICO’s failure to settle a covered claim against her.[19] This does not mean, of course, that an insured’s failure to meet his or her contractual obligations to the insurer is without consequence in a later suit in which the insured brings a negligent or bad faith tort claim against the insurer. Indeed, an insured’s failure to satisfy a condition of the insurance policy may work in many cases to defeat an essential element of such a tort claim. For example, when the undisputed facts show that the insured’s breach of his or her contractual duties was the sole cause of the damages alleged, then the insured cannot prove, as a matter law, that his or her damages were proximately caused by the insurer’s negligence or bad faith. See Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v. Gingold, 249 Ga. 156, 157158 (1) (288 SE2d 557) (1982) (When the insured under a vehicle liability policy failed to cooperate with the insurer by concealing his whereabouts, the insurer was unable to obtain the insured’s required consent to settle the accident claim and proceeded to trial. Because the insured’s conduct rendered settlement impossible, the insurer was not responsible for the resulting judgment in excess of the policy limits.). Cf. Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 297 Ga. 38, 41-42 (771 SE2d 864) (2015) (The insured was precluded from pursuing a bad faith failure-to-settle claim against its excess insurer under OCGA § 33-4-6 because the insured had settled the underlying claim without obtaining the insurer’s consent, which was a contractually agreed upon condition precedent to the insurer’s obligation to make a payment to the insured under the policy.).[20] Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, OCGA § 33-7-15 and the corresponding policy provisions regarding notice to the insurer of the filing of a suit against the insured do not bar liability as a matter of law for Whiteside’s negligent or bad faith failure-to-settle claim on the basis that GEICO did not receive notice of the lawsuit against its insured. (b) If the notice provisions do not bar liability for a bad-faith claim, can an insured sue the insurer for bad faith when, after the insurer refused to settle but before judgment was entered against the insured, the insured lost coverage for failure to comply with a notice provision? The answer to the second certified question is a qualified “yes.” The certified record shows that, before Guthrie sent GEICO his settlement demand, GEICO had accepted responsibility for the accident and had determined that Winslett was insured as a covered permissive driver under the policy. Given that Winslett was covered under the policy at that time, GEICO’s duty to settle arose as soon as GEICO received Guthrie’s time-limited, policy-limits settlement demand. See First Acceptance, 305 Ga. at 492 (1). Based on the facts in the record before us, GEICO thereafter breached its duty to settle when it unreasonably rejected Guthrie’s policy-limits demand. After the breach of duty, the question for the jury was whether, under these circumstances, GEICO should have foreseen Winslett’s failure to notify it of suit and of any consequences flowing from that failure, including the entry of a default judgment. Although GEICO had a duty to settle and breached that duty while Winslett was covered by the policy and before Guthrie’s suit was filed, triggering Winslett’s duty to notify GEICO, GEICO nevertheless argues that “no bad faith claim can exist until an excess verdict exists[,]” and, “ if the insured, for whatever reason, loses coverage before judgment, then coverage does not exist at the point at which the bad faith cause of action accrues.” Therefore, GEICO contends, the “insured is exposed to a judgment due to the loss of coverage, not the insurer’s actions.” Or, stated differently, when Winslett lost coverage as a result of her failure to notify GEICO of suit, any tort liability founded on GEICO’s pre-existing breach of its pre-existing duty to settle was extinguished as a matter of law. GEICO’s argument does not make sense in the context of a failure-to-settle tort action, which exists to compensate an insured for losses proximately caused by a breach of the insurer’s duty to settle. When a cause of action accrues is important for determining when a suit is ripe for litigation or when the statute of limitation runs.[21] And whether and when Winslett had coverage under the policy is critical to determining the existence and limits of the various contractual and extra-contractual duties GEICO owed her, including the duty to settle and the duty to defend. See Division 2, supra. But, in this case, whether Winslett had coverage when the cause of action accrued is not relevant to whether Winslett’s damages were proximately caused by GEICO’s breach of its duty to settle. In fact, the certified record shows that the jury could determine, as it did, that GEICO was largely responsible for her loss of coverage. In support of its argument, GEICO cites a number of cases from other jurisdictions holding that a bad faith failure-to-settle claim accrues when judgment is entered against an insured in excess of the policy limits. None of these cases, however, stand for the proposition that an insured’s failure-to-settle claim is extinguished as a matter of law when an insured loses coverage after the duty to settle is breached but before the excess judgment is entered.[22] And we have found no case law in support of that proposition.[23] Therefore, we conclude that, even though Winslett lost coverage when she failed to notify GEICO of Guthrie’s suit, GEICO is liable for its negligent failure to settle Guthrie’s claim under the circumstances of this case: Winslett was a covered insured under the policy; GEICO owed her a duty to settle; GEICO breached that duty; and the jury found that GEICO was partially at fault for Winslett’s failure to comply with the notice-of-suit provision and the resulting default excess judgment entered against Winslett. (c) Does a party have the right to contest actual damages in a follow-on suit for bad faith if that party had no prior notice of or participation in the original suit? The answer to the third certified question is “no.” The law in Georgia is well-settled that, “after an insurer’s liability for wrongful refusal to settle a claim against its insured is established, the insured or its assignee is entitled as a matter of law to recover damages equal to the amount by which the judgment exceeds policy coverage.” (Citations omitted.) Cotton States, 256 Ga. App. at 456 (3). See Camacho v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 188 FSupp.3d 1331, 1351 (II) (C) (N. D. Ga. 2016).[24] Nevertheless, GEICO argues that applying this measure of damages violated its right to due process under the Georgia Constitution because it deprived it of an opportunity to argue that the default judgment in excess of policy limits entered in the underlying litigation exceeded the true value of Guthrie’s damages. First, GEICO has not cited any authority, nor have we found any, that suggests that the measure of damages applicable in this case constitutes a violation of due process under the Georgia Constitution.[25] Second, this argument makes little sense under the circumstances of this case because damages in a negligent failure- to-settle case reflect the damages the insured incurred as a result of the insurer’s tortious failure to settle a claim brought against the insured by a third party. If GEICO were able to re-litigate Guthrie’s personal injury claims in the failure-to-settle suit, and then use Guthrie’s measure of damages as a substitute for what Winslett actually suffered as a result of the excess default judgment against her, Winslett may not be made whole even if the jury finds entirely in her favor. Winslett remains liable to Guthrie, even if her bankruptcy trustee succeeds on the failure-to-settle claim against GEICO; therefore, if the bankruptcy estate does not recover enough from GEICO to satisfy Guthrie’s judgment, the estate would not be fully compensated for Winslett’s damages, and GEICO would escape responsibility for breaching its settlement duty to Winslett. Such an outcome would deny Winslett the full measure of compensatory damages allowed under Georgia law. Certified questions answered. All the Justices concur, except Boggs and Peterson, JJ., disqualified.
