Offers of Settlement and Uninsured Motorist Insurance in Georgia
On September 26, 2025, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued an important decision in Blazys v. McKnight, clarifying whether uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) insurance carriers can be
Why: In a nutshell, because UM insurers are unique and can act as 1) the defendant driver, 2) the insurance under its own name or 3) a ghost that is not in the case at all, the Offer of Settlement must be against an actual party that has the verdict rendered against it.
This case illustrates how procedural moves by insurers can limit an injury victim’s ability to recover litigation costs, even after a successful trial. Below, we’ll explain the decision in legal terms, translate it into plain English, provide real-world examples, and share best practices for Georgia lawyers handling similar cases
The Court’s Legal Holding
In Legal Terms
The plaintiffs, Joseph and Romaine Blazys, served Allstate (their UM carrier) with settlement offers under OCGA § 9-11-68. The offers were rejected. At trial, the jury awarded damages far exceeding 125% of the offers. Normally, this would entitle plaintiffs to attorney’s fees under the statute.
However, before trial, Allstate elected to proceed solely in the name of the uninsured driver (McKnight) instead of continuing as a named party. Because of this, the Court of Appeals held that Allstate was not a “party” at the time of trial, and thus the fee-shifting provisions of § 9-11-68 did not apply. Instead, the plaintiffs’ recourse was through OCGA § 33-7-11 (j), the UM statute’s bad faith penalty provision【5†source】.
In Plain English
The Court said: If your UM insurance company chooses to fight in the name of the at-fault driver instead of its own, you can’t make the insurer pay your attorney’s fees under Georgia’s settlement-offer law—even if you win big at trial if they are no longer a party in the case at verdict. If they had remained in the case, the implication is that they could, but the Court did not reach those arguments.
Instead, your only option is to claim the insurer acted in bad faith under the UM statute. But that’s harder to prove, because you must show the insurer had no reasonable basis for refusing to pay within 60 days of your demand.
Why the Decision Matters
This case is significant because it gives insurers a way to limit their fee exposure. By electing to proceed in the tortfeasor’s name rather than as a named party, a UM carrier can avoid fee-shifting under OCGA § 9-11-68. For plaintiffs, this means a successful verdict may not cover their attorney’s fees unless they can also prove bad faith under OCGA § 33-7-11 (j).
It also raises strategic questions for both plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense counsel: When should a UM carrier stay in the case as a party, and when should it withdraw? How should plaintiffs respond to protect their fee claims?
Real-World Examples
Example 1: The Rear-End Collision
Jane is rear-ended by an uninsured driver. She sues both the driver and her UM carrier, Statewide Insurance. Jane offers to settle with Statewide for $100,000 (the UM policy limit). Statewide refuses.
If Statewide stays in the case as a named defendant and Jane wins $300,000 at trial, she can seek attorney’s fees under OCGA § 9-11-68, since the jury award was more than 125% of her offer.
But if Statewide withdraws as a named party and fights only in the driver’s name, Jane cannot recover fees under § 9-11-68. She must instead pursue penalties under OCGA § 33-7-11 (j)—and only if she proves bad faith.
Example 2: The Distracted Driver Case
Mark is struck head-on by an uninsured motorist who was texting. His UM carrier, Peach Mutual, answers in its own name but later elects to proceed only in the driver’s name. Mark makes a $250,000 settlement offer. Peach Mutual rejects it.
At trial, Mark wins $1 million. Because Peach Mutual was not a “party” at trial, he cannot recover attorney’s fees under § 9-11-68. His only option is to argue that Peach Mutual’s refusal to settle was in bad faith under § 33-7-11 (j)—a claim that requires separate litigation and additional proof.
Best Practices for Lawyers
1. Track the UM Carrier’s Status Closely
From the outset, determine whether the UM carrier has answered in its own name. Monitor pre-trial orders to see if it withdraws as a party. This decision may directly affect whether § 9-11-68 fee-shifting applies. Send the Offer of Settlement to the Named Defendant as well. It should stick
2. Use Both Fee Statutes Strategically
- If the UM carrier remains a named party, serve a detailed settlement offer under OCGA § 9-11-68.
- If the carrier withdraws, preserve the right to pursue a bad faith claim under § 33-7-11 (j).
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals’ decision in Blazys v. McKnight clarifies an important procedural rule: Only named parties can be held liable for attorney’s fees under Georgia’s settlement-offer statute. If a UM carrier withdraws as a party and defends only in the driver’s name, plaintiffs must rely on the UM bad faith statute for fee recovery unless you sent one to the Defendant too. Now the Court took the easy way out here and they may decide the Offer of Settlement statute does not apply to UM insurers at all as there is an exclusive bad faith remedy already in the statute
For injury victims, this means that even a large jury verdict may not guarantee reimbursement of attorney’s fees. For lawyers, it underscores the need to carefully track UM carriers’ litigation choices, structure settlement offers strategically, and preserve alternative fee claims.
Ultimately, this case highlights how insurers’ procedural maneuvers can significantly impact an injured plaintiff’s bottom line.