A Georgia appeals court has ruled that an insurer can lock in a binding settlement by accepting only the statutory material terms - even over the claimant's objections.
The decision in Gomez et al. v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, No. A25A2187 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2026), reinforces how carriers can navigate demand letters loaded with extra conditions designed to trip them up.
The case traces back to a December 16, 2021, motor-vehicle accident in which Ashley (Thomas) Perry, insured by USAA with $50,000 per-person liability coverage, was involved in a collision that killed DeAndre Anthony Logan. On September 26, 2023, Emely Gomez, acting as next friend of Logan's minor daughter, sent a demand to USAA for Perry's full per-person policy limit.
The demand letter was anything but straightforward. It claimed OCGA § 9-11-67.1 did not apply, yet repeatedly referenced the statute. It required USAA to agree in writing that inconsistencies between the offer and the statute would not invalidate the demand, and that Gomez's terms - not the statute - controlled. Any deviation, including an "extra or missing comma or period or misspelling, even if accidental," would be treated as a rejection.
USAA did not take the bait. On November 1, 2023, it accepted "the material terms of the settlement offer" under OCGA § 9-11-67.1(a) and (b)(2), agreeing to pay the $50,000 per-person policy limit - and nothing more. It declined every extra-statutory condition.
Gomez's counsel then ostensibly "withdrew" the offer, claiming USAA had failed to accept all of its terms. USAA held firm, forwarded a $50,000 settlement check after Gomez refused to provide wire-transfer instructions, and ultimately filed suit on April 16, 2024, seeking both damages and equitable relief. The trial court sided with USAA, granting judgment on the pleadings and ordering specific performance of the settlement.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed on all counts. It held that OCGA § 9-11-67.1 (2021) applies to pre-suit settlement offers - not just those made after a lawsuit is filed - because the statute covers "any offer" made prior to the filing of an answer. The court also held that under the 2021 version, the statutory material terms "shall be the only terms which can be included in an offer to settle" unless both parties agree otherwise in writing. Since USAA never agreed to operate under the extra-statutory conditions, those conditions were irrelevant to contract formation.
The court distinguished Redfearn v. Moore, where the insurer had accepted the claimant's extra-statutory terms without exception and was therefore bound by common-law contract principles. Here, because USAA accepted only the statutory terms, the settlement stood on statutory ground alone.
For insurers, the takeaway is clear: when a demand letter arrives packed with onerous, extra-statutory conditions, the statute provides a path to settle on its own terms - literally. A carrier that provides written acceptance of the material terms under OCGA § 9-11-67.1(a) can form a binding agreement without agreeing to anything beyond what the statute requires.
