A recent opinion from the Georgia Court of Appeals enforced a settlement agreement under the 2024 version of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1.
The underlying facts of this case arise out of a motor vehicle accident involving Abriel Torres, the claimant, and Fredy Pineda, who was insured under a liability policy with State Farm. Torres sent Pineda a letter under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1 offering to settle her claims for the $25,000 policy limit in exchange for a limited liability release. As a part of the offer, Torres required that State Farm provide “an oral statement by the assigned claims representative before a court reporter authorized to administer oaths regarding whether all liability and casualty insurance coverage provided by State Farm to Pineda ha[d] been disclosed.” Torres argued this term of the offer complied with O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1(b)(1)(G). However, nothing in the language of the statute required State Farm to provide this statement orally in front of a court reporter.
As a result, State Farm responded by accepting the material terms of the offer and indicated it would provide the statement under oath as required under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1(b)(1)(G). After State Farm sent a written statement under oath instead of an oral one, Torres’s counsel returned the check and contended that the parties never reached a binding settlement agreement. Specifically, Torres’ counsel stated State Farm did not comply with a material term of the offer when it failed to provide an oral statement under oath in front of a court reported.
When Torres filed suit, Pineda moved to enforce the settlement agreement by arguing that State Farm timely accepted the material terms of Torres’ offer that were allowed under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1. Agreeing with Pineda, the Court explained Torres could not require any additional or more restrictive terms without State Farm’s consent. In doing so, the Court emphasized that the only material terms required to form a settlement agreement are those listed in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1. The Court therefore concluded that a binding contract existed when State Farm accepted the material terms of Torres’ offer that were permitted under the statute.
[View source.]
