A recent opinion out of the Georgia Court of Appeals is forcing insurers to choose their words carefully when seeking clarification regarding time-limited settlement demands. In Yim v. Carr, the Court of Appeals reversed a ruling that a defendant driver's insurer had accepted the plaintiff's time-limited demand for the policy's limits, holding instead that the insurer's request for clarification regarding the scope of the offer's release was not an "unequivocal acceptance" of the offer, but rather a counteroffer. The holding is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, but in the meantime, it is causing some hand-wringing among insurance representatives and the defense bar. ... Continue Reading
Recent decisions by the Georgia Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court make it easier for parties to avoid court and resolve their disputes in arbitration. In each decision, a party sought to avoid arbitration by advancing arguments against arbitration based on public policy. The courts rejected these public policy type arguments, making it more difficult for a party to avoid arbitration when there is an arbitration clause that covers the suit or claim. ... Continue Reading
In light of the increasing cyber data breaches over the last couple of years, Georgia companies must be aware of the legal requirements that are triggered a company discovers or reasonably believes that a breach in the security of the unencrypted personal information data of any Georgia resident has occurred. O.C.G.A. § 10-1-912. ... Continue Reading
Dual Coverage for Workers' Compensation Insurance Under a Voluntary Policy and Assigned Risk Plan in Georgia
Georgia employers are required by law to retain workers' compensation insurance if they employ three or more full time, part time, or seasonal employees. This is an arduous endeavor, however, as several employers are unable to obtain workers' compensation coverage in the standard insurance market. Fortunately, every state provides employers an opportunity to acquire workers' compensation insurance through a Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan, Pool, or Residual Market. ... Continue Reading
We have noticed a troubling trend in recent product liability cases in which plaintiffs' counsel will not agree to a protective order concerning a manufacturer's confidential documents without the inclusion of a so-called "sharing provision". These provisions generally permit plaintiffs' attorneys, or any other parties subject to the protective order, to indefinitely retain a defendant's confidential documents and share them with third parties as they see fit. Opposing counsel often justify such provisions by arguing that the confidential documents will only be shared with parties in other pending or litigation involving the same product. However, many manufacturers understandably view these provisions as defeating the entire purpose of a protective order. ... Continue Reading
The Journal is a publication for the clients of Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP. It is written in a general format and is not intended to be legal advice to any specific circumstance. Legal Opinions may vary when based upon subtle factual differences. All rights reserved.
H. Michael Bagley