Insurance Coverage Litigation
Vol. 34 No. 1
Published in Coverage Vol. 34 No. 1, Copyright © 2025, American Bar Association. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof
may not be copied or disseminated in any form o r by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the
express written consent of the American Bar Association.
Georgia Attempts to Address Settlement Issues with
Amended Statute
By Christopher C. Meeks
In 2022, the American Tort Reform Foundation listed Georgia as its number one “judicial
hellhole,” a title that Georgia retained for 2023.1 Among other reasons cited by the foundation
for Georgia’s ranking is the Georgia Court of Appeals’ June 2023 decision in Pierce v. Banks.2
Pierce concerns whether an enforceable settlement existed after an insurer attempted to accept a
claimant’s demand by using a check stating that it was “void after 180 days.”3 The court
answered the question in the negative in what some would argue is an overly technical and
pedantic interpretation of the mirror image rule and the law concerning negotiable instruments.
This interpretation has caused a great deal of consternation and rate pressure among Georgia
automobile insurers despite the Georgia General Assembly’s two attempts since 2013 to
establish by statute—Georgia Code section 9-11-67.1—what can and cannot be included in
settlement offers. The 12 months following Pierce have seen the Georgia Supreme Court deny
certiorari while the Georgia Court of Appeals entered two similar decisions in Patrick v.
Kingston and Redfearn v. Moore.4 This trio of claimant-friendly decisions suggests that
Georgia’s top billing as a “judicial hellhole” is likely to remain safe for 2024 in the eyes of the
American Tort Reform Foundation. However, that ranking may change, as a new and updated
third version of section 9-11-67.1 took effect on April 22, 2024, which likely renders Pierce and
its progeny judicial dead ends by significantly limiting the ability of the plaintiff’s personal
injury bar to “set up” bad-faith claims against insurers. This article explores the history of
Georgia Code section 9-11-67.1; the circumstances surrounding Pierce, Patrick, and Redfearn;
and how the 2024 revisions to section 9-11-67.1 may change the dynamics between claimants
and insurers that led to Pierce, Patrick, and Redfearn.
The Evolution of Georgia Code Section 9-11-67.1
On May 7, 2013, the first version of Georgia Code section 9-11-67.1 took effect. As originally
enacted, section 9-11-67.1 (2013) applied to “any offer to settle a tort claim for personal injury,
bodily injury, or death arising from the use of a motor vehicle [] prepared by or with the
assistance of an attorney” sent “[p]rior to the filing of a civil action[.]”5 The statute required that
such offers be in writing and contain the following material terms:
(1) The time period within which such offer must be accepted, which shall be not less
than 30 days from receipt of the offer;
(2) Amount of monetary payment;
(3) The party or parties the claimant or claimants will release if such offer is accepted;
(4) The type of release, if any, the claimant or claimants will provide to each releasee;
and
