Saturday, March 9, 2019

Forthcoming Opinions

Yesterday the Court announced a list of forthcoming opinions expected to be released on Monday, March 11. Opinions are expected Monday in: 
Cert Cases
S18G0364. TYNER v. MATTA-TRONSCOSO et al. 
Plaintiffs sued Tyner after suffering severe injuries in dog attack, allegedly because Tyner was negligent in ensuring the dogs could not escape his tenant's fenced in backyard.  Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial courts grant of summary judgement for Tyner?
S18G0517. FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC. v. HUGHES 

1. Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the grant of summary judgment to the insurer on the insured’s failure-to-settle claim, on the basis that questions of fact existed for the jury to determine as to whether the injured party offered to settle her claims within the policy limits, and established a 30-day deadline to accept the offer? 

2. Does an insurer's duty to settle arise when it knows or reasonably should know settlement within policy limits is possible, or only when the injured party presents a valid offer?


Oral argument note: 

Based on the oral argument, it appears the court will re-instate the trial court's grant of summary judgement because language in the Court of Appeals opinion erroneously characterized the issue of whether there was an offer to settle as a "question of fact," and the only time limit appearing in the relevant evidence did not pertain to a time limit on accepting the purported offer. 

Therefore, the second question will likely be the dispositive issue in the case. If the Court decides that a valid offer is a requirement, then First Acceptance will prevail. 

To that end, Justice Nahmias expressed doubts that the common law required a "policy limits, time limited" offer by an opposing party before an insurance company could be held liable for bad faith failure to settle, largely because there is longstanding common law duty for insurers to give "equal consideration" to their insured. This equal consideration principle, Justice Nahmias indicated, would seem to say that an insurance company could not refuse to make such an offer on behalf of its insured when it would almost certainly do so on its own behalf. 

Justice Blackwell, on the other hand, pressed counsel for the Appellee on what limit there could ever be on an insurance company's duty to settle (arising when there is a substantial risk the claim will exceed the insured's policy limits) if the relevant standard was "the insurance company must do what it can," because "you can always do more," for example "if you make ten settlement offers you can always make an eleventh."


The case has been followed closely by many in the insurance industry, as well as both the plaintiffs and defense bar, and includes numerous amicus briefs, including one by former Chief Justice Sears.


Mandatory Jurisdiction Cases

S19A0430. BLAINE v. THE STATE

S18A1282. BROOKS v. THE STATE

S19A0180. COAST v. THE STATE

S18A1321. DENNARD v. THE STATE

S18A1074, S18A1075. ESPRIT v. THE STATE (two cases)

S18G0563. LICATA v. THE STATE

S18A1562. JOHNSON v. THE STATE

S18A1090. THE STATE v. ROSENBAUM et al.

S18A1158. THE STATE v. SPRATLIN

S18A1137. THE STATE v. TEDDER

S18A1295. WARE v. THE STATE

S18A1467. WEST v. THE STATE

S18A1052. YARN v. THE STATE



Attorney Disclipline

S18Z1232. IN THE MATTER OF LAJUAN MIGUEL CERTION

S18Y0337-S19Y0340. IN THE MATTER OF NEIL LARSON (four cases)

No comments:

Post a Comment