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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
