Widow Recovers Stunning $2.35 Million Under $25,000 State Farm Policy
Time 2 Minute Read

An eye-popping settlement in Georgia serves as a cautionary tale for insurers who refuse to provide a straight answer when responding to a demand for policy limits and as a lesson for insureds dealing with recalcitrant insurers: Don’t just take “no” for an answer.

A  widow insured under a State Farm policy with $25,000 limits has recovered $2.35 million for her insurance claim for her husband’s wrongful death. A driver crossed the center line and smashed into 80-year old John Timmons’s pickup truck, causing him to suffer a broken neck, cracked ribs, and severe cuts. A little more than nine weeks later, he succumbed to his injuries. While Timmons lay in the hospital, his wife, Eulene Timmons, and children sought the advice of counsel. At the time, the Timmonses were insured under a $25,000 State Farm policy.

Due to the grievous nature of her husband’s injuries and pain and suffering, Mrs. Timmons’s attorney demanded that State Farm tender its $25,000 policy limits. A representative responded by stating that State Farm would need to see additional notarized affidavits before it could confirm or deny coverage. In so doing, State Farm made what would turn out to be a very costly mistake.

Under Georgia law, if an insurer responds to an insured’s demand for policy limits by making a counteroffer, the counteroffer will constitute a rejection, subjecting the insurer to a claim for bad-faith conduct and potential liability in excess of policy limits. After Mr. Timmons passed away, his widow filed suit against State Farm in Georgia state court, where the court ruled that State Farm’s demand for additional notarized affidavits amounted to a counteroffer and rejection of the Timmonses’ demand. As a result, State Farm was on the hook for potential damages well-above the $25,000 for policy limits.

Fearing the worst, one day before jury selection was scheduled to begin, State Farm settled Mrs. Timmons’s claim for $2.35 million. According to their attorney, the Timmonses allegedly suffered damages of $750,000 for Mr. Timmons’s medical bills and $6,000 in funeral costs and for the extreme pain and suffering that Mr. Timmons experienced before he died. In all likelihood, State Farm considered the sympathetic nature of the Timmonses’ claims and the likelihood that the jury might award them exorbitant amounts of damages, and arrived at the $2.35 million settlement figure to protect itself from an even larger potential jury verdict.

  • Partner

    Larry Bracken has 40 years of experience litigating insurance coverage, class action and commercial cases in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Pro bono representation of clients in habeas corpus, prisoner ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On February 7, the Emory Public Interest Committee (EPIC) honored insurance coverage partner Lawrence (Larry) J. Bracken II with their 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award at the annual EPIC Inspiration Awards. As one of the Emory University School of Law’s signature events, the Inspiration Awards celebrate members of the community who do extraordinary work in the public interest and provide funding for public interest summer jobs.

Time 4 Minute Read

On December 9th, the Eleventh Circuit held that a loss of over $1.7 million to scammers was covered under a commercial crime insurance policy’s fraudulent instruction provision.

Time 2 Minute Read

Energy industry: is your insurance sufficient to handle a major cyber event? Larry Bracken, Mike Levine, and I address this question and more in our recent article for Electric Light & Power, found here.  In the article, we identify three major gaps in cyber insurance that we routinely see when analyzing coverage for energy industry clients. The first major gap is coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by a cyber event. Most cyber insurance policies exclude coverage for both bodily injury and property damage, even if caused by a cyber event. Meanwhile, many commercial general liability insurance policies now exclude cyber-related risks, thus creating a gap in coverage for these losses. The second gap we identify is coverage for fines and penalties, including those issued under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Even where cyber insurance policies expressly purport to cover fines and penalties, it is unclear if these may be deemed uninsurable as a matter of public policy in certain jurisdictions. Finally, we identify a gap in coverage for business income losses when the insured’s network, or that of a vendor on which they rely, goes down. That coverage is a key component of a robust cyber program, but one that is typically only offered for an additional premium.

Time 6 Minute Read

A federal court has ruled in Catlin Specialty Ins. Co. v. J.J. White, Inc., that settlement of an underlying third-party lawsuit involving covered and uncovered claims requires consideration of two principles of proof. First, the factfinder must assume that the insured was actually liable in the underlying case. Second, the factfinder must resolve all factual issues necessary to deciding coverage. A copy of the decision can be found here; and a copy of a related summary-judgment opinion can be found here.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page