Effect of general release.

- Insured defeated the ability to collect underinsured motorist benefits from the insurer by executing a general release to the tortfeasor, rather than a limited release. Rodgers v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 228 Ga. App. 499, 492 S.E.2d 268 (1997).

Reformation of release.

- When an insured signed a general release believing that the release would not affect the insured's claim against the insured's underinsured motorist carrier, reformation of the release would be warranted if mutual mistake of law could be proved. Superior Ins. Co. v. Dawkins, 229 Ga. App. 45, 494 S.E.2d 208 (1997).

Because the insured exercised reasonable diligence in relying on representations made by both the insured's insurer's agent and the tortfeasor's agent, the trial court should have reformed the settlement and release to reflect the parties' intent to only release the tortfeasor and the tortfeasor's insurer from liability rather than granting summary judgment. Clark v. Byrd, 254 Ga. App. 826, 564 S.E.2d 742 (2002).

Evidence did not show limited release.

- Plaintiff failed to take those steps which would have indicated, without equivocation, that the plaintiff's release of the automobile accident tortfeasor was intended to allow the plaintiff to retain the right to sue the carriers of uninsured/underinsured motor vehicle coverage. Cook v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 237 Ga. App. 400, 514 S.E.2d 48 (1999).

Dismissal with prejudice barred recovery.

- Insureds' dismissal with prejudice claim against the defendant driver, rather than merely executing a limited liability release against the defendant, defeated the insureds' ability to recover damages from the insureds' underinsured motorist carrier. Kent v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 233 Ga. App. 564, 504 S.E.2d 710 (1998).

Settlement does not prevent application of underinsured motorist coverage.

- Settlement for the limits as stated in the policy satisfies the exhaustion requirement of O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1, and the insured may then pursue a claim against the insured's underinsurance carrier, even though under O.C.G.A. §§ 33-24-41.1 and33-34-3, the "deemer" statute, the tortfeasor's policy is deemed to provide greater coverage. Daniels v. Johnson, 270 Ga. 289, 509 S.E.2d 41 (1998).

Because the insured accepted the limits of liability insurance coverage of the first defendant and executed a limited-liability release, the insured exhausted the liability limits of the first defendant and was entitled to pursue underinsured motorist benefits to the extent the first defendant was underinsured; the insured's settlement with the dismissed defendants precluded the insured's ability to pursue underinsured motorist benefits against those defendants, but it did not preclude the insured from seeking underinsured motorist benefits based on the possibility that the first defendant was underinsured. Wade v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Co., 324 Ga. App. 491, 751 S.E.2d 153 (2013).

Release did not extinguish uninsured motorist carrier's subrogation rights.

- Injured insured's uninsured motorist insurer could sue a tortfeasor in subrogation as provided in O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11(f) even after the insured had released the tortfeasor from personal liability, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1, except to the extent that insurance coverage, other than the tortfeasor's personal liability policy, existed. Ramos-Silva v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 300 Ga. App. 699, 686 S.E.2d 345 (2009).

Settlement for less than policy limit.

- To satisfy the exhaustion requirement of O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1, a carrier must offer and a claimant must accept an amount equal to the limit stated in the policy, not an amount less than the limit stated in the policy; accordingly, when an insured settled with a second person's carrier for less than the policy limit, the insured did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement and was not entitled to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage from the insured's own insurer. Holland v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 285 Ga. App. 365, 646 S.E.2d 477 (2007), cert. denied, No. S07C1403, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 619 (Ga. 2007).

Acceptance of settlement offer.

- Trial court erred in granting the insureds' motion to enforce a settlement agreement a parent and an administrator allegedly reached with an insurer because the insurer's tender was not sufficient to constitute acceptance of the settlement offer; assuming that the offer by the parent and the administrator contemplated a legal impossibility or was in "tension" with the governing law, it did not follow that the insurer could accept something other than the offer made. Kitchens v. Ezell, 315 Ga. App. 444, 726 S.E.2d 461 (2012).

Insurance company, on defendant's behalf, accepted plaintiff's offer by providing a limited release that adhered to plaintiff's specifications and by tendering a check for $100,000. Thus, the defendant and the insurance company's compliance with the demands of the plaintiff's offer constituted an acceptance and the settlement agreement was enforceable. Arnold v. Neal, 320 Ga. App. 289, 738 S.E.2d 707 (2013).

Insurer complied with the terms of an injured driver's settlement offer by submitting a $25,000 check within the offer's deadline, and the trial court erred in denying the insurer's motion to enforce the settlement agreement based on the insurer's inclusion of a general release rather than a limited release with its letter because the insurer's language regarding the release was precatory rather than mandatory. Newton v. Ragland, 325 Ga. App. 371, 750 S.E.2d 768 (2013).

Injury claim and spouse's loss of consortium claim were injury to one person.

- An injured wife and her husband satisfied the exhaustion requirement of O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1 and could proceed against their UM insurer; the husband's loss of consortium claim arose out of the wife's claim, so by settling both their claims for $25,000, the other driver's per person limit, the couple exhausted the available coverage. Mullinax v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 303 Ga. App. 76, 692 S.E.2d 734 (2010).

Cited in Integon Indem. Corp. v. Henry Medical Ctr., Inc., 235 Ga. App. 97, 508 S.E.2d 476 (1998); Edmond v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 249 Ga. App. 338, 548 S.E.2d 450 (2001).