Conditional Release Allows Supplemental Claims
Post 5238
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/ge2yNQby, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gcSF9KWj and at https://lnkd.in/gQfJqwiM, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
A Release Should Totally Resolve Dispute
In Harvey et al. v. Hall, No. A25A1774, Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division (December 3, 2025) Paul Harvey, an employee of Arthur J. Dovers (d/b/a 3D Mobile Home Services), drove a truck towing a trailer loaded with machinery and equipment. Harvey fell asleep, veered off the road, and crashed into a culvert, causing Lamar Hall serious injuries.
FACTS OF SETTLEMENT
On August 18, 2020, Hall signed a limited liability release under OCGA § 33-24-41.1, releasing Harvey, Dovers, and their insurer (Georgia Farm Bureau Insurance Company) from liability for the accident in exchange for $50,000, “except to the extent other insurance coverage is available which covers the claim.”
Dovers’s general liability insurer (Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company) denied coverage, citing a policy exclusion for bodily injuries from automobile use or entrustment. Dovers’s commercial auto insurer (Wesco Insurance Company) denied coverage, stating the truck was not a covered vehicle. Hall filed a personal injury suit against Harvey and Dovers, seeking over $557,000 in medical expenses.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Harvey and Dovers moved for summary judgment, arguing the release barred Hall’s claims absent evidence of other available insurance coverage. The trial court denied the motion via summary order without explanation. Harvey and Dovers appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying summary judgment, given the limited release and lack of evidence of other insurance coverage.
Limited Release under OCGA § 33-24-41.1:
A statutory mechanism allowing settlement with a tortfeasor’s liability insurer up to policy limits while preserving claims for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits or other available coverage.
It releases the tortfeasor and settling insurer from personal liability but permits pursuit of judgment against the tortfeasor solely to access other insurance.
Affirmative Defense Burden:
Defendant must prima facie establish the defense (e.g., via the release document). The burden then shifts to plaintiff to produce evidence creating a jury issue (analogous to surviving a directed verdict). Failure to do so warrants summary judgment.
Application:
Appellants met their burden by submitting the release and insurers’ outright coverage denials. Hall produced no evidence (e.g., policy analysis or litigation against insurers) showing coverage under Wesco/Republic-Vanguard policies or elsewhere.
Rejection of Hall’s Arguments:
Denial letters do not “prove existence” of coverage; they affirm non-coverage. Hall could have litigated coverage against the insurers but did not, forfeiting the claim.
HOLDING
Harvey and Dovers were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, as Hall failed to produce evidence of available other insurance coverage to overcome the affirmative defense of release.
ZALMA OPINION
When an insurer settles a claim against an insured it will usually obtain a release from the claimant eliminating any further claims against the insured for the accident. In this case, the release allowed the plaintiff to sue the insured again to see if it could find further insurance available to pay Hall for his injuries. Hall tried and failed in an effort that could be avoided entirely if the release was not conditional literally encouraging litigation against the insured and its insurers.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
