INSURANCE CASE LAW UPDATE
Williams v. Reddick, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 492, *1
Key Legal Holdings
- In this case, Reddick’s evidence (a one-page, undated ‘Uninsured Motorists/Underinsured Motorist Coverage Summary’) was insufficient to show that Equity made an affirmative written choice to reject UM coverage, thus failing to establish the affirmative defense of release.
- Without evidence that Ace obtained a written rejection of UM coverage from Equity, any UM exclusion in Ace’s policy would conflict with OCGA § 33-7-11 and be void, meaning UM coverage might still be available to the Appellants.
Material Facts
- Michael Williams was driving a tractor trailer owned by his employer, Equity Group, when he and Robert Reddick had a vehicle collision on September 18, 2015.
- The Appellants executed a limited liability release pursuant to OCGA § 33-24-41.1, releasing Reddick except to the extent other insurance coverage is available.
- Michael filed a UM claim with Ace under Equity’s liability policy, which has not been rejected.
- Reddick attached a one-page, undated document titled ‘Uninsured Motorists/Underinsured Motorist Coverage Summary’ to his brief, purporting to show that Equity rejected UM coverage in Georgia.
Controlling Law
- OCGA § 33-24-41.1 allows for limited liability releases in motor vehicle accidents.
- OCGA § 33-7-11(a)(1) requires insurance policies issued in Georgia to contain UM coverage.
- OCGA § 33-7-11(a)(3) allows named insureds to reject UM coverage in writing.
- OCGA § 9-11-56(c) provides that summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Court Rationale
The Court of Appeals reasoned that as the movant putting forth the affirmative defense of release and absence of UM coverage, Reddick had the burden to show that Equity made an affirmative written choice to reject UM coverage. The court found that the Summary document alone was insufficient evidence of Equity’s written rejection of UM coverage. The court noted that while there are no formal requirements for how UM coverage must be rejected, rejection be in writing by the named insured. Without evidence of a written rejection, any UM exclusion would conflict with Georgia law and be void.
Procedural Outcome
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Reddick.
Lester v. Hampton, 377 Ga. App. 353, 353
Key Legal Holdings
- Where Lester’s pre-answer settlement offer specified only the acceptance period and monetary amount but failed to include the other required terms under OCGA § 9-11-67.1(a)(1), the offer was not valid and capable of acceptance, regardless of Progressive’s purported acceptance and payment.
- Even though Lester’s settlement offer referenced OCGA § 51-12-14 instead of OCGA § 9-11-67.1, the court held that OCGA § 9-11-67.1 still applied to the offer because it was a pre-answer offer to settle a motor vehicle personal injury claim prepared by an attorney.
Material Facts
- Lester filed a personal injury suit against Hampton for injuries sustained when Hampton allegedly hit him with a truck on September 11, 2022.
- Hampton filed his answer on January 31, 2023.
- On January 18, 2023, Lester’s counsel sent a $25,000 settlement demand to Progressive (Hampton’s insurer).
- The demand referenced OCGA § 51-12-14 and required acceptance with payment by February 17, 2023.
- Progressive sent a letter on February 8, 2023, stating it accepted the offer and enclosed payment.
Controlling Law
- OCGA § 9-11-67.1 (2021), which governs pre-answer settlement offers in motor vehicle personal injury cases, requiring five specific material terms in such offers. The court also referenced Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Woodard, 300 Ga. 848 (2017), which interpreted similar statutory language.
Court Rationale
The court reasoned that OCGA § 9-11-67.1 applied to Lester’s offer despite it referencing a different statute. The court determined that Lester’s offer failed to all of the five material terms required by OCGA § 9-11-67.1(a)(1): the party/parties to be released, whether the release was full or limited with itemization, and the claims to be released. Because the offer did not satisfy these statutory requirements, it was not a valid offer capable of acceptance, and therefore no enforceable settlement agreement existed.
Procedural Outcome
The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting Hampton’s motion to enforce settlement, entering judgment for Hampton, and dismissing Lester’s complaint.