Statute to Protect Against Bad Faith Offers Created an Opposite Result

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/law-unintended-consequences-strikes-again-help-set-up-barry and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3750 posts.

In White v. Cheek, A21A0212, Court of Appeals of Georgia (May 21, 2021) a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident involving Stephan Duwayne White and Walter Cheek. White appealed from the trial court’s denial of his motion to enforce a settlement. White contended that the trial court erred by holding that oral communications on White’s behalf constituted a counter-offer, and thus there was no enforceable settlement agreement formed between the parties.

ZALMA OPINION

The Georgia statute was enacted with an attempt to avoid bad faith set-up offers of settlement. It, as Chief Judge McFadden noted, had the exact opposite effect. The court was compelled to enforce the statute as written. Chief Judge McFadden made it clear in a concurring opinion that GEICO should aggressively defend the bad faith suit and made clear that a motion for summary judgment should be granted because the offer was clearly a bad faith set-up attempt.