The Georgia Court of Appeals will soon be tackling the question of what constitutes a genuine settlement offer. This is an issue regularly encountered by defense attorneys, as indicated by the Georgia Defense Lawyers Association’s amicus brief in the matter. The key dispute here is whether defense counsel failed to accept a settlement offer or if the plaintiff’s counsel crafted terms that were intentionally difficult to understand, thereby creating what is being referred to as a “bad faith failure-to-settle claim”.
Counsel for the defendant-appellant, including Laurie Webb Daniel, Matt Friedlander of Webb Daniel Friedlander, and J. Holder Smith Jr. of Young Thagard Hoffman, have positioned this scenario as a circumstance that forces defendants and their insurers into extensive litigation. They argue that this also increases the risk of a liability judgment surpassing the insurance coverage amount.
This interpretation suggests the plaintiff’s demand could have been an attempt to elude a policy-limits settlement by transmitting an overly complex demand comprised of confusing and ostensibly immaterial terms, designed to provoke rejection. The ultimate decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals could set an important precedent in defining a ‘bona fide’ settlement offer.
A more detailed report of the case can be found here.