A Georgia appeals court has ruled insurers need only provide a sworn coverage statement, rejecting claimants' demands for subjective assurances.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia decided on January 30 that GEICO properly handled a settlement offer in a car accident case, even though the injured party complained the insurer hadn't done enough to prove it disclosed all available coverage.
The case started simply enough. D'Andre Hancock was injured in February 2024 when Rachell Gabrell's car hit his vehicle head-on. Gabrell had a GEICO policy with a $25,000 limit, and Hancock offered to settle for that amount.
But there was a catch. Hancock's settlement demand included language requiring GEICO to "adequately assure" him that no other coverage existed. When GEICO's claims representative gave a sworn statement about the coverage, Hancock said he wasn't satisfied and rejected the settlement twice.
The dispute hinged on Georgia's settlement statute, which allows claimants to include a requirement that insurers provide a sworn statement about whether all potentially applicable insurance has been disclosed.
The representative testified that GEICO had checked with its underwriting department to confirm no other policies were linked to Gabrell's account. The company looked at both personal and commercial lines. Gabrell herself confirmed she had no other policies and wasn't working when the accident happened.
Hancock wasn't buying it. He argued GEICO should have investigated whether Gabrell lived with relatives who might have policies covering the accident. His lawyer said the insurer's investigation fell short of providing adequate assurance.
A trial court agreed with Hancock and denied Gabrell's motion to enforce the settlement. Gabrell appealed.
The appeals court reversed, and the reasoning matters for claims professionals across Georgia. Judge Markle, writing for a unanimous panel, said the state statute requires only one thing: a sworn statement about insurance disclosure. Nothing more.
The court pointed out that the law doesn't specify what form that statement should take or what procedures an insurer must follow to gather the information. It certainly doesn't require carriers to "adequately assure" anyone about anything.
That phrase, the court said, would create a completely subjective and arbitrary standard. How could any insurer ever know if a claimant felt adequately assured? The requirement would be entirely subjective, allowing claimants to reject valid settlements based purely on whether they felt satisfied.
The ruling emphasized that Georgia's settlement statute lists specific terms that can be included in settlement offers. Under the law, insurers can accept an offer by agreeing to those statutory terms in writing. Extra requirements that go beyond the statute don't count.
GEICO had done exactly what the law required. It accepted all the statutory terms in writing and provided a sworn statement about coverage. The fact that Hancock wanted more assurance didn't matter, because that wasn't part of the statute.
The decision fits into a broader pattern. Georgia amended its settlement statute in 2021 specifically to close loopholes that plaintiffs had been using to manufacture bad faith claims against insurers. The appeals court cited a 2022 case, Anderson v. Jones, which noted the legislature's intent to stop claimants from adding requirements that would make the statutory framework meaningless.
The court noted that GEICO actually went beyond statutory requirements. The insurer confirmed Gabrell wasn't working when the crash occurred and had no additional GEICO policies. The statute doesn't require carriers to investigate policies with other insurance companies.
For claims handlers, the takeaway is straightforward. When handling settlement offers under Georgia's statute, provide a sworn statement about coverage disclosure. Do a reasonable investigation through normal company procedures. But don't let claimants impose additional subjective standards that aren't in the law.
The decision also protects insurers from having completed settlements unwound because a claimant later claims they weren't satisfied with the disclosure process. Once the statutory requirements are met and acceptance is provided in writing, the deal is done.
