Three words just cost a Georgia motel operator a $300,000 settlement. 

The Court of Appeals of Georgia on September 23 affirmed a trial court's refusal to enforce what Glenwood Motel Enterprises argued was a done deal – a policy-limits settlement with a claimant who alleged he was violently attacked at the company's OYO Hotel. 

The dispute wasn't about the underlying claim. It was about paperwork. 

The claimant filed a personal injury action in October 2024. In July 2025, he sent Glenwood a settlement demand for $300,000 – the full limits of a liability policy Great Lakes Insurance SE had issued to the motel operator. Among the conditions, the demand required an affidavit "attesting that there is no additional liability coverage available ... that applies to the subject incident or claim." It warned that failure to strictly comply with any term would constitute a rejection. 

Glenwood accepted, sent the check on time, and provided an affidavit from its owner. But the owner swore only that she was "not aware of" any other coverage – rather than stating definitively that none existed. 

The claimant rejected the affidavit and returned the money. 

Glenwood asked for guidance on acceptable language. None came. It never submitted a revised affidavit. 

When Glenwood moved to enforce the deal, the trial court denied the motion, finding the affidavit fell short. The Court of Appeals agreed, applying Georgia contract law requiring acceptance to be "unconditional and identical with the terms of the offer" with no variance of any sort. 

The court cited its 2025 decision in Wright v. Spearman, which held that even "stringent" or "petty" conditions in a settlement offer must be met to the letter – especially when the offer explicitly warns that anything less counts as a rejection. 

Presiding Judge wrote separately to note the case turned on general contract principles, not Official Code of Georgia Annotated Section 9-11-67.1 – the Georgia statute governing pre-answer settlement offers in motor vehicle injury cases. 

For claims teams handling policy-limits demands, the takeaway is concrete: an affidavit saying "not aware of" other coverage and one saying "there is no" other coverage are not the same thing – and the gap can unwind a settlement that looked closed.