"Dangerous Misapplication of O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1 Limited Liability Releases in Nonmotor Vehicle Accident Claims”

Swift Currie attorneys Marc Barré and Scott Connally authored a two-part series for the Daily Report discussing how the misapplication of O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1 limited liability releases in nonmotor vehicle accident claims can pose a danger. In the first part, the attorneys highlighted the increase Georgia personal injury practitioners have encountered of settlement demands in nonmotor vehicle tort cases that require the use of a limited liability release. In the second part, Barré and Connally explored the issues with using § 33-24-41.1 in nonmotor vehicle cases and offered insight on how attorneys and mediators should address limited liability releases in these types of cases. 

Barré and Connally discussed how broad application of the statute could pose significant risk for both plaintiffs and defendants by barring legitimate claims or creating ambiguity when it comes to the scope of releases executed in a settlement. 

“Understanding why the distinction between general and limited releases matters requires understanding the derivative nature of UM coverage,” said Barré and Connally. “The statute requires specific language, including releasing ‘the settling carrier from all liability from any claims of the claimant’ and releasing the tortfeasor ‘except to the extent other insurance coverage is available’.” 

The attorneys also discussed how improper use of the statute and inaccurate template design for releases as essential challenges that practitioners need to address. They cautioned against demanding limited liability releases in nonmotor vehicle cases and instead use general release or outline specific limitations without invoking statutes that are inapplicable. 

“As our profession evolves and form documents are increasingly shared and reused across different types of cases, vigilance about the proper application of specialized statutes becomes ever more important,” said Barré and Connally. “Clients deserve counsel who understand the legal tools they use and apply them appropriately to the specific circumstances of each case.”

To view part one, click here.

To view part two, click here.