OCGA 9-11-67.1 Georgia Policy Limits Demand Statute

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1

The statute does not define “bad faith” or outline what insurance behavior makes a negligent claims handling case.

It only sets the requirements for a pre-suit demand sent by Plaintiff’s counsel.

Failing to follow the statute means that your demand is ineffective as a matter of law.

There can be no “bad faith” or negligence claim for failure to timely pay down the road because the demand has no effect.

When Does it Apply?

  1. Car wrecks July 1, 2013 and after.
  2. If Lawyer represented, not to pro se demands.
  3. Only applies pre-suit. If you are in litigation, the law does not apply.
  4. Motor Vehicle Accidents only

What Changed?

  1. 30 day minimum time to consider the demand.
  2. Must cite the statute in the demand.
  3. Open for acceptance in writing; no more saying you can only accept demand by payment.
  4. Must send by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested
  5. You must offer a release of some type and specify the type of release and the parties tobe released. Best practice is to attach your own release.
  6. The insurer has the right to request more information about:
                  a. medical liens;
                  b. subrogation claims by health insurance, workers compensation, Medicare andMedicaid
                 c. standing to release claims;
                 d. missing medical bills and missing medical records;
                 e. other relevant facts.

So What If I Don’t Comply with the Drafting requirements?

Then your demand is incapable of acceptance and the
insurance company can not be found to have turned down an
offer to settle within policy limits as a matter of law.

Best Practices:
  1. Track this Policy Limits demand.
  2. Send your draft of the release.
  3. Be detailed in your records gathering. Any missing records can be a valid reason to stall on paying limits.
  4. Respond to the adjuster’s requests for additional information in writing. If the request is foolish, politely ask why the information is needed to evaluate the claim.
  5. Remember every letter and phone call is potentially a jury exhibit.
  6. Request the payment be made within ten days of acceptance. Failure to pay timely is a denial of the offer to settle. This will be a ripe area for litigation.
DOES IT APPLY TO UM DEMANDS? PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE OF OCGA 33-7-11, BUT I WOULD
COMPLY ANYWAY. ONCE ADJUSTERS GET IN HABIT OF EXPECTING PRO FORMA DEMANDS,
ANYTHING LESS WILL GET IGNORED.

What Does it All Mean?

You can file suit to opt out, but DO NOT BE AN ASS

I think a lot of us will file suit so that conventional demands can still be used for cases where the reimbursement scenario is a tangled mess and the limits need to be secured.

The reason we have the legislature paying attention is because some of the Plaintiffs bar thinks that good practice means getting too cute with demand language traps. If members of the Bar continue to behave that way in litigation, there will be more drastic measures implemented.

Insurance companies don’t need helping screwing up.
 IF YOU WOULD BE EMBARRASSED EXPLAINING
YOUR DEMAND TO AN APPELLATE PANEL, DON’T SEND IT.

When is Failure to Pay within 10 Days of Written Acceptance a
Trigger for Extra-Limits Claims?


It is a different analysis from the old demands where the offer was open for acceptance by payment only and they missed it by a few days. In the old cases, there was no colorable acceptance.

Under this scheme, there is a colorable acceptance in the 30 day letter but the statute makes it clear that you can require payment within 10 days of the acceptance letter. The idea is that the acceptance letter is one requirement and payment is another. Failure to meet both terms of the demand means
no offer and acceptance. Is missing part two a big deal? Arguably yes. Its all a matter of degree. One day, please don’t bring that case. 15 days late after multiple demands, maybe.

Missing the 30 Day Acceptance Gives You a Better Case Than
in The Old Days


In the new scheme, we will still have insurers who fail to deliver the acceptance letter within 30 days of receipt. Those facts will still be analyzed the old way. How badly did they miss the due date and why?

Our appellate argument is stronger now. 30 days is reasonable as a matter of law and the demand contained all the required documents. The insurers failure to request specific further information prior to the 30 day deadline should yield an extra-limits case that can go to the jury.

What Will Insurers Do?

It means we should expect organized form response letters from insurers requesting any missing medical documents. The letters will cite the statute and request documentation and affidavits on
reimbursement claims combined with extensive assurances when it comes to liens.

As a matter of practice they may begin to ask for certifications of lien information to buy more time. The request for more information is probably waived if the 30 days goes by so expect the requests on a regular basis to cover their rears.

Indemnity

The statute does not address whether the client needs to offer indemnity so that question will remain for the courts. Can we argue that its exclusion from the statute means the legislature did not intend to be so protected?

Scenario:
Lawyer sends totally compliant demand but refuses to indemnify for health insurance subrogation
claims.

Carrier refuses to tender limits without the indemnity.
Result? The statute does not speak to this and we are back to arguing before the Appellate Courts.

The mood from the trial and appellate bench is sour on bad faith claims. Judges do not look kindly on simple technical mistakes resulting is massive extra-contractual damages.

THE PLAINTIFFS BAR NEEDS TO REMEMBER THAT WE NEED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS.

BE REASONABLE IN YOUR LETTERS.

RESPOND TO ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.

INSURERS WILL STILL DENY VALID CLAIMS WITHOUT YOU BEING A JERK. IT'S IN THEIR NATURE.


The full statute:

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1
(a) Prior to the filing of a civil action, any offer to settle a tort claim for personal injury, bodily injury, or death arising from the use of a motor vehicle and prepared by or with the assistance of an attorney on behalf of a claimant or claimants shall 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

(5) The claims to be released.

(b) The recipients of an offer to settle made under this Code section may accept the same by providing written acceptance of the material terms outlined in subsection (a) of this Code section in their entirety.

(c) Nothing in this Code section is intended to prohibit parties from reaching a
settlement agreement in a manner and under terms otherwise agreeable to the parties.

(d) Upon receipt of an offer to settle set forth in subsection (a) of this Code section, the recipients shall have the right to seek clarification regarding terms, liens, subrogation claims, standing to release claims, medical bills, medical records, and other relevant facts. An attempt to seek reasonable clarification shall not be deemed a counteroffer.

(e) An offer to settle made pursuant to this Code section shall be sent by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested, and shall specifically reference this Code section.

(f) The person or entity providing payment to satisfy the material term set forth in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section may elect to provide payment by any one or more of the following means:

(1) Cash;

(2) Money order;

(3) Wire transfer;

(4) A cashier's check issued by a bank or other financial institution;

(5) A draft or bank check issued by an insurance company; or

(6) Electronic funds transfer or other method of electronic payment.

(g) Nothing in this Code section shall prohibit a party making an offer to settle from requiring payment within a specified period; provided, however, that such period shall be not less than ten days after the written acceptance of the offer to settle.

(h) This Code section shall apply to causes of action for personal injury, bodily injury, and death arising from the use of a motor vehicle on or after July 1, 2013.
Client Reviews
  • My wife and I were hit by a tractor trailer in 2014. After extensive research online, we were deeply impressed with the various reviews we read on Google and Avvo and chose Chris to represent us. We could not have a made a better decision. Chris and his firm treated us like we were their only clients, soothed our worries, and instantly gained our trust. Chris settled both of our cases for more than we expected.
    ★★★★★
  • A co-worker of my wife recommended Chris to us. At the very beginning Chris showed that he cared and his knowledge is priceless. Going through this process can be aggravating but Chris did a great job guiding me through this and was always available to answer my questions. Chris fought to get what I deserved even though at times I wanted to give up.
    ★★★★★
  • I want to express my deepest sense of gratitude and appreciation to Attorney Chris Simon & Attorney Chris Carsten, for all the hard work that they put forth into my case (car accident filed after being hit by drunk driver). Their attention to detail and professionalism far surpasses their firm's reputation. Because of their diligence and dedication to their craft, they were able to bring my case to a successful close, one that I could live with. You will not find a better team for your case. Should I have a need for their services again in the future, or know of anyone looking for a top notch Auto Accident Law Firm, I would not hesitate to recommend them!!!!
    ★★★★★
  • Wow...Chris is a very good attorney. Me and my son was in a very bad car accident an I was clueless on how to handle the situation. It's very hard to find an attorney who allows you to contact them personally instead of you contacting their asst. I was told that I didn't have a case because the hosiptal put a lien on my acct. Chris prove different and I was able to file my case with the insurance company. The process was very quickly and Im glad I selected the right attorney..Thanks Chris
    ★★★★★
  • Chris is a great lawyer and the most people friendly attorney I have ever delt with. He handled my case with great attention to detail and did so in a very short period of time. He is very consice, efficient, patient and understanding. He has a strong passion for what he does and he does it well. I recommend Chris Simon as legal representation for anyone who has suffreed damages or a loss at the negligence of others. He really cares about you and your case.
    ★★★★★