Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog

Insurance Company Settlement Offer Rejected Due to Restricted Check

October 2, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

There is a common scenario that plays out following an auto accident. First, the injured driver sends a demand letter to the negligent driver’s insurance company, offering to settle for the limits of the latter’s policy. Next, the insurance company either accepts the offer unconditionally–usually by sending a check–or makes a counter-offer. A counter-offer constitutes a rejection of the original offer, so there is no agreement. But if the insurer does send the check, that is often enough to create a binding settlement, which the insurer and its insured may seek to enforce in court.

Claxton v. Adams

What if the insurance company sends a check, but it cannot be cashed right away? Is there still a binding settlement? Not according to a recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Convenience Store in High-Crime Area Not Liable for Attack on Customer

September 30, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

The typical premises liability claim involves a customer who is injured slipping and falling in the aisle of a store. In such cases, the legal question is whether or not the store owner breached its legal duty to keep its premises “in a reasonably safe condition” for invited members of the public. The owner is not, however, required to absolutely guarantee a patron’s safety.

ABH Corporation v. Montgomery

In some cases, a store owner’s duty may extend possible criminal acts that occur on its premises. But this can be much trickier to prove than a simple slip and fall. This is because the victim must prove that the store owner had “reason to anticipate” the criminal act and failed to exercise “ordinary care” to protect the public. The mere fact that a crime occurred, or even that the neighborhood may be considered more prone to criminal activity, is not enough to establish the store owner’s legal liability.

Court of Appeals Rejects Lawsuit Against Psychiatrist Who Treated Drunk Driver Just Before Fatal Crash

September 25, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

It goes without saying that a drunk driver can be held liable in a civil lawsuit for injuring someone while on the road. In some cases, Georgia law even makes it possible for an accident victim to sue a bar or restaurant for serving the drunk driver. But what about a mental health professional who treated the drunk driver? Can they also be held responsible for failing to take action to prevent their patient from getting behind the wheel?

Stanley v. Garrett

The Georgia Court of Appeals addressed these questions in a recent decision, Stanley v. Garrett. This case involved a man named Fettig, who had a history of alcoholism and depression. The defendant in this case was Fettig’s psychiatrist.

Insurance Company Faces “Bad Faith” Lawsuit Over Failure to Settle Drunk Driving Accident Claim

September 18, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Georgia law requires insurance companies to act in good faith when resolving auto accident claims. For example, if you are injured in an accident caused by another driver’s clear negligence, the other driver’s insurance company is expected to make a good-faith effort to negotiate a settlement, especially when your damages meets or exceeds the limits of the actual policy. Conversely, if the insurer acts in bad faith, you can file a lawsuit and seek additional damages.

Kemper v. Equity Insurance Company

For example, a federal appeals court recently revived a bad-faith lawsuit brought against an insurance company by the victim of a motorcycle accident. The plaintiff in this case, Kemper v. Equity Insurance Company, was driving her bike down a road in Coweta County, Georgia. Another driver, who it turned out was intoxicated, crossed the centerline of the road and crashed into the plaintiff, causing her serious injuries.

Georgia Court Tosses $100,000 Award of Future Medical Expenses in Car Accident Lawsuit

September 11, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

A jury verdict in favor of the victim is often not the “last word” in a personal injury case. Aside from any appeal the defense might bring, the trial judge can also issue what is known as a “judgment notwithstanding the verdict” (j.n.o.v.) This basically means the judge finds that, based on the evidence presented during the trial, there can only be “one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment.” Put another way, j.n.o.v. is only appropriate when it is not a “close case” and the evidence–including any reasonable inferences someone could make from such evidence–inevitably leads to a conclusion that differed from that of the jury.

Gary v. Brown

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Gary v. Brown, illustrates the type of case in which a court may grant a j.n.o.v. This personal injury lawsuit involved a 2014 auto accident. The defendant rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff did not initially seek medical treatment following the collision.

11th Circuit Rejects Negligence Lawsuit Over Controlled Burn at Georgia Military Base

September 4, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

There is a well-established rule in American law that you cannot sue the government without its consent. This rule, known as sovereign immunity, imposes a high bar for anyone who wants to sue the government for the negligent acts of its employees. Basically, unless Congress adopts an express exemption to the sovereign immunity rule, the injured victim is out of luck.

Fortunately, Congress has adopted a fairly broad waiver of sovereign immunity for personal injury claims. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows individuals to sue the federal government for negligent acts, but there are multiple exceptions to this waiver. One of the most notable is the “discretionary-function” exception.

Under this exception, you cannot sue the federal government based on an employee’s “exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function.” In simpler terms, if the law gives a federal employee any amount of discretion on how to do their job, you cannot bring a claim under the FTCA based on how that discretion is used–even if the employee was negligent. However, if the employee failed to follow a specific federal law, regulation, or policy, then the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity may still apply, as that does involve any discretionary function.

11th Circuit: Atlanta Condo Managers Failed to Promptly Inform Insurer of Emlpoyee’s Sexual Assault

August 31, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are involved in a car accident, you should always promptly notify your auto insurance carrier. Failure to do so may lead the insurer to deny coverage. This is a basic rule of Georgia insurance law that applies equally to large companies. At the end of the day, an insurance policy is a contract, and you are expected to strictly adhere to its terms, including any notice requirements.

Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Renaissance Bliss, LLC

Indeed, a failure to notify can affect the rights of third-party victims who may end up suing an insured entity. A recent decision from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Renaissance Bliss, LLC, provides an illustration of this principle. This particular case began with the rape of a property manager at a Georgia condominium complex. The sexual assault occurred in the property’s parking lot. When police later arrived at the scene, they learned that the parking lot’s security cameras, which might have captured footage of the assault, were not operational.

Atlanta Judge Allows Punitive Damages Claim Against Trucking Company Over 2016 Accident

August 28, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In general, monetary damages in a personal injury case are meant to compensate the victims for their losses. But there are cases in which a jury may award what are known as “punitive damages.” These damages are not meant to compensate, but rather to punish. Put another way, punitive damages are designed to “send a message” that certain types of outrageous or egregious misconduct will not be tolerated in a civilized society.

Punitive damages are considered an extraordinary remedy under Georgia law. This means that it is not enough for a plaintiff to show they were injured by the defendant’s negligence. Rather, state law requires proof by “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant engaged in “willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.”

Ferguson v. Garkuhsa

Court of Appeals: Victims Suing Under Maritime Law May Seek Full Amount of Medical Bills, Regardless of What Insurance Paid

August 21, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

You probably know that if you are injured due to someone else’s negligence, you can sue that person to recover your medical expenses. But defining the precise scope of medical expenses can get complicated, particularly in the U.S. healthcare system. For instance, are you entitled to recover the full amount you were billed by your doctor or hospital, or just what your insurance company agreed to pay?

Higgs v. Costa Crociere Spa Company

A federal appeals court recently confronted this question in the context of a maritime law dispute. While personal injury cases that arise on land normally fall under state law, if are you injured on a cruise ship or elsewhere on the “high seas,” you typically need to sue the negligent party under federal maritime law.

Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Negligence, Emotional Distress Lawsuit Against Georgia Cemetery

August 14, 2020 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In September 2002, Yahazia Odelia purchased two side-by-side plots from a cemetery in DeKalb, Georgia. The plots were known as Space 15 and Space 16, respectively. Odelia buried her sister in pace 16 and reserved Space 15 for her mother when her time came.

When Odelia’s mother passed away in 2016, Odelia was shocked to learn that the cemetery had re-sold Space 15 to another family in April 2005, who buried one of their loved ones in the plot previously reserved for Odelia’s mother. As you might expect, Odelia was not happy about this and took legal action.

In April 2016, a Georgia judge ordered the cemetery to disinter the remains of the person buried in Space 15 and to make that space available for the burial of Odelia’s mother, as they were contractually obligated to do in the first place. Odelia was finally able to bury her mother next to her sister in June 2017.