Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

The Georgia legislature recently amended O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1, the statute that sets forth requirements for pre-answer settlement demands in motor vehicle personal injury cases, to temper use of such pre-answer settlement demands to set up bad faith failure-to-settle claims against insurers. These pre-answer demands are known as Holt demands based on the Georgia Supreme Court case of S. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Holt, 262 Ga. 267, 416 S.E.2d 274 (1992), which established that an insurer which fails to settle a claim for its insured—and is found to have done so negligently, fraudulently, or in bad faith—may be liable for damages in excess of the insurance policy limits.

The Eleventh Circuit recently confirmed the rule that “other insurance” clauses should not be used to disadvantage policyholders. Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Georgia Sch. Bd. Ass’n - Risk Mgmt. Fund, No. 22-13779, 2023 WL 5977299, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2023). In a dispute between an insurance company and a public risk management fund, both insurance policies included “other insurance” clauses stating that each insurer would only provide excess insurance coverage where the policyholder is covered by other insurance. The district court found that the clauses were irreconcilable because both insurance policies could not provide only excess insurance coverage—at least one policy would need to provide primary coverage. Because of the conflict, the Georgia federal district court applied Georgia’s irreconcilable-clauses rule and held that each policy must provide coverage to the policyholder on a pro rata basis. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of Georgia’s irreconcilable-clauses rule.

We recently posted about Nevada becoming the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what is called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. 

Whether an insurer has a right to reimburse defense costs after a finding that it has no duty to defend remains an open question in Georgia. However, in Continental Casualty Co., et al. v. Winder Laboratories, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-11758 (11th Cir. Jul. 13, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in with its prediction on the likely answer. Persuaded by the logic of other jurisdictions that, “wide-ranging reimbursement is necessarily inappropriate in a system—like Georgia’s—that is predicated on a broad duty to defend and a more limited duty to indemnify,” the Eleventh Circuit predicted that, “the Supreme Court of Georgia would follow that logic to adopt a ‘no recoupment’ rule to protect its insurance system.”  

Nevada recently became the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what’s called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. These provisions are commonly included in errors and omissions (E&O), directors and officers (D&O) and other management liability policies. This is in contrast to other policies, most commonly commercial general liability policies, which provide defense “outside of limits” where defense costs do not reduce the policy’s limit. 

In a COVID-19 insurance coverage lawsuit that Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. filed against several insurers in Nevada state court, two recent rulings in favor of Hilton highlight the importance of strategic decisions early in a case.