Insights

November 5, 2021 – In a decision issued on October 22, 2021, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to Allstate and enforced an underinsured motorist policy as written notwithstanding some “creative” machinations on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel to seek coverage where none was contemplated.

The Plaintiff was injured when a drunk driver struck her vehicle. She and her husband settled with that driver’s insurer for its $100,000 limit, then turned around and sought the $100,000 limit of her own policy’s underinsured motorist coverage. Such coverage provides protection in the case of an accident in which the at-fault driver’s own liability coverage is insufficient.

August 11, 2021 – The Georgia Supreme Court has handed down a decision interpreting Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, as inapplicable in single-defendant cases. Alston & Bird, LLP v. Hatcher Mgmt. Holdings, LLC, No. S20G1419, 2021 WL 3501075 (Ga. Aug. 10, 2021). The Court’s decision, written by Justice Peterson, reflects a myopic focus on parsing the statutory language as narrowly as possible despite absurd results while disregarding common sense – along with the understanding of the provision long held by the General Assembly, judges, and lawyers based on the legislative intent of Georgia’s 2005 tort reform effort.

May 19, 2021 – The Georgia Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a crucial apportionment case, Alston & Bird LLP v. Hatcher Management Holdings, LLC, No. S20C1419 (Ga. Sup. Ct. July 2, 2020). The Supreme Court granted certiorari after the Court of Appeals held that Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, does not allow a court to reduce the share of damages owed by a Defendant in a single-Defendant case, even where non-parties are found to bear a majority share of fault.

April 20, 2021 – The Supreme Court of Georgia handed down an extremely problematic decision yesterday in a negligent/bad faith failure to settle case, ignoring the notice requirement contained in both a relevant insurance contract and as provided for by Georgia Statute on its way to determining – absent any analysis – that an insurer acted unreasonably in rejecting a pre-suit settlement demand. The case is GEICO Indem. Co. v. Whiteside, No. S21Q0227, 2021 WL 1521527 (Ga. Apr. 19, 2021).