I previously reported that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had certified questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia regarding the rights of an insurer to refuse to consent to a settlement and, thereby, absolve itself of any payment obligation for any settlement entered into by the policyholder. See Piedmont Office Realty Trust v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., No. 14-11987 (11th Cir. Oct. 21, 2014). On April 20, 2015, the Supreme Court of Georgia sided with the insurer. See Piedmont Office Realty Trust v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., No. S15Q0418 (Ga. Apr. 20, 2015). The opinion creates a Hobson’s choice for policyholders wishing to settle underlying lawsuits, even in cases where those insurers expressly agreed in their policies that they would not refuse consent to settlement unreasonably. The policy in question contained a “consent to settle” clause which stated that no settlement could be entered into without the insurer’s consent; but the clause also stated that the insurer’s consent “shall not be unreasonably withheld.” Facing a $150 million lawsuit and eroding policy limits, the policyholder sought the insurer’s permission to settle the underlying claim for the remaining $6 million limits of its excess policy. The insurer refused to contribute more than $1 million toward any settlement. The policyholder ultimately settled the claims for $4.9 million, which was approved by the trial court. The policyholder then sued the insurer for the settlement amount, alleging breach of the policy and bad faith failure to settle. The Supreme Court of Georgia acknowledged that an insurance company cannot unreasonably refuse to settle a covered claim; but it held that the policyholder could not settle and then pursue the insurer for breach of this duty. This holding essentially eviscerates the express policy provision and Georgia law holding that an insurer may not unreasonably withhold consent for a settlement. Worse, the court held that the policyholder also could not pursue the insurer for the settlement amount based on bad faith. The court acknowledged that many states allow such recourse, but it held Georgia law does not permit a bad faith claim under these circumstances. The court held that the policyholder could not sue the insurer for bad faith refusal to settle the underlying lawsuit “in the absence of a judgment against [the policyholder] after an actual trial.” Policyholders should anticipate that insurance company claims handlers and counsel will cite this decision as curtailing policyholders’ settlement rights under Georgia law. But, policyholders do have rights that may affect their ability to properly defend and settle cases filed against them. Georgia policyholders should not assume this opinion does away with all of their rights when it comes to the decision whether to settle claims made against them. When faced with a reservation of rights or an insurer with different opinions about how to handle a lawsuit filed against them, policyholders should consult coverage counsel to ensure they are not overlooking rights they may have with respect to the handling and settlement of such claims.
RELATED ARTICLES
Insurer-Paid Defense Costs: Can Insurers Get their Money Back?
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
State of the Law for Business Interruption Insurance Coverage for COVID-19 Claims
May 14, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance, Claims
The Right to Independent Counsel: What It Is and When You Should Demand It
December 7, 2020 | Policyholder Protection
The Duty to Cooperate Is Not a Duty to Conform
January 31, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
Case Summaries
December 10, 2019 | Policyholder Protection, Policy, Claims
Insurer-Paid Defense Costs: Can Insurers Get their Money Back?
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
State of the Law for Business Interruption Insurance Coverage for COVID-19 Claims
May 14, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance, Claims
The Right to Independent Counsel: What It Is and When You Should Demand It
December 7, 2020 | Policyholder Protection
The Duty to Cooperate Is Not a Duty to Conform
January 31, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
Case Summaries
December 10, 2019 | Policyholder Protection, Policy, Claims
Building An Insurance Bad Faith Case
November 14, 2019 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance
Tell All: Making a Case for More Dialogue in the Insurance Application Process
January 24, 2018 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Sold! Close Your M&A Deal Confidently by Funding Post-Closing Liabilities Through Insurance
January 2, 2018 | do, Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Should Independent Counsel Fees Be Charged Against Policy Limits?
August 15, 2017 | Insurance, Policy, Policyholder Protection
Check Your Policy When an Insurer Says a Self-Insured Retention Applies to Its Duty to Defend
May 30, 2017 | Duty To Defend, Policyholder Protection
Bad Faith Isn’t the Only Remedy
March 27, 2017 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
California Supreme Court Denies Insurance Industry’s Attempt to Deregulate Insurance in California
February 7, 2017 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Recent Trial Win Raises Interesting Issues on Relationship Between Insurance Agent and Policyholder
January 30, 2017 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Insurer Asks for a White Waiver as a Condition to Talking Settlement. Should You Do It?
December 29, 2016 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Sixth Circuit Opinion Serves as Reminder of Potential Pitfalls in Excess Coverage
November 30, 2016 | Excess Insurance, Policyholder Protection
When the Damage is Done Are You Prepared to Litigate Against Your Insurance Company?
October 11, 2016 | Insurance, Insurance Broker Claims, Policyholder Protection
What Insurance Should Cover Target’s Visa Settlement?
August 20, 2015 | Cyber Insurance, Data Breach, Policyholder Protection
Texas Supreme Court to Decide Key Coverage Question on Policyholders’ Rights
July 13, 2015 | Claims, Policyholder Protection
Scott Godes Quoted in Law360 Article, “4 Cyberinsurance Battlegrounds to Watch”
July 6, 2015 | Cyber Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Will Your Tech E&O Insurance Cover Your Retention of Someone Else’s Electronic Data?
May 12, 2015 | Cyber Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Policyholder Rights Under Seige in Illinois
May 1, 2015 | Duty To Defend, Policyholder Protection
HOW DO HISTORICALLY LOW REINSURANCE RATES AFFECT HISTORICALLY LOW POLICYHOLDER SATISFACTION?
April 27, 2015 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Indiana Court of Appeals Opinion Supports Recovery of Expenses Incurred by Policyholder in Assisting Carrier in Defending an Insured Lawsuit
April 13, 2015 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Indiana Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Significant Allocation Issue
April 10, 2015 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Scott Godes Quoted in Cyber Risk Network’s article, “10 million settlement with consumers a ‘good deal’ for Target, insurers”
March 25, 2015 | Data Breach, Policyholder Protection
Your Liability Insurer Agreed to Defend? Don’t Relax Yet.
January 13, 2015 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Know Your Rights: Policyholders’ Defense and Settlement Rights
November 4, 2014 | Claims, Policyholder Protection
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center