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
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