CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Travelers’

Georgia Supreme Court Overrules Precedent on Attorney’s Fees for Counterclaimants

Posted on: April 8th, 2020

By: Jake Carroll

Georgia law permits the award of attorney’s fees to a claimant where the party defending the claim has “acted in bad faith” in making the contract, has been stubbornly litigious, or has caused the plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense. O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. The “bad faith” refers to bad faith in the making or performance of the contract, and may exist whether or not there is a bona fide controversy otherwise existing between the parties.  Thus, “bad faith” relates to the making or performance of the contract and not the conduct of the litigation. The terms “stubbornly litigious” and “unnecessary trouble and expense” relate to the conduct of the litigation and may be found to exist where there is a lack of bona fide controversy.

Both the Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have repeatedly held that “the award of expenses of litigation under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 can only be recovered by the plaintiff in an action under the language of the statute; therefore, the defendant and plaintiff-in-counterclaim cannot recover such damages where there is a compulsory counterclaim.”[1]

However, the decision in SRM v. Travelers overrules prior holdings, and allows a counterclaimant to recover attorney’s fees under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, regardless of whether the counterclaim is independent of the plaintiffs claim.

In light of the Travelers decision, claimants should evaluate the potential risk of claims for attorney’s fees from their counterclaimants. In commercial and construction contract disputes, the Travelers decision impacts risk for counterclaims of attorney’s fees based on a claimant’s conduct during litigation, as well as bad faith in making or performing the underlying contract.

For Georgia insurers, this ruling does not call into question the status of Georgia’s insurance bad faith statute, O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6, which is the exclusive remedy for and insurer’s refusal to pay a “covered loss.” Although the claims at issue in SRM were against an insurance company, they involved the calculation of premium as opposed to a coverage issue within the purview of Section 33-4-6. Be sure to follow FMG’s Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith BlogLine for analysis of current state-wide and national trends in insurance litigation.

If you have questions regarding this decision, or any other construction or commercial contract questions, Jake Carroll practices construction and commercial law as a member of Freeman Mathis & Gary’s Construction Law, Commercial Litigation, and Tort and Catastrophic Loss practice groups. Mr. Carroll represents business and commercial entities in a wide range of disputes and corporate matters involving breach of contract and warranty claims, business torts, and products liability claims. He is available at [email protected].


[1] See Byers v. McGuire Properties, Inc., 679 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 2009); Graybill v. Attaway Constr. & Assocs., 802 S.E.2d 91 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017) (attorney’s fees not permitted on compulsory counterclaim);Singh v. Sterling United, Inc., 756 S.E.2d 728 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014); Sanders v. Brown, 571 S.E.2d 532 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

The Sixth Circuit Finds Coverage For Fraudulent Wire Transfer Under Crime Policy

Posted on: September 12th, 2018

By: Allen Sattler

Business email compromise (“BEC”) claims consist of incidents where cyber criminals access or use a company’s email system to commit a crime, usually for financial gain and often including the use of trickery to convince an employee to wire transfer corporate funds to the criminal’s account.  According to statistics reported by the FBI,  BEC claims are on the rise, especially in the last three years.  In 2016, there was a 2,370% increase in email account compromise attacks, involving losses of nearly $346 million, and the frequency of BEC claims continues to rise.

Several insurers offer coverage for BEC claims, including for losses sustained as the result of fraudulent wire transfer.  In American Tooling Center, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of Am., 5:16-cv-12108 (6th Cir 2018), the Sixth Circuit became the latest federal appeals court to interpret an insurance policy that included coverage for fraudulent wire transfers.  In a decision dated July 13, 2018, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the crime policy provides coverage for the loss incurred by the insured.

American Tooling Center (“ATC”), a Michigan manufacturer in the automobile industry, hired a Chinese company to manufacture stamp dies.  To receive payment for its work, the Chinese company would send invoices to ATC, and ATC would route payment to its vendor via wire transfer.  In 2015, a person outside the company intercepted an email from ATC to its vendor.  That person impersonated an employee of the vendor and told ATC that because of an audit, ATC should wire transfer payment on its outstanding invoices to a different bank account.  ATC complied with the instructions and wired over $800,000 to the thief’s bank account.  The thief was never identified, and the money was not recovered.

ATC made a claim to its insurer pursuant to a “Computer Fraud” provision of its crime policy to recover the money lost.  The insurer denied coverage, arguing that ATC did not suffer a loss until it eventually paid the outstanding invoices to the Chinese vendors, and that ATC therefore did not suffer a “direct loss” as required by the policy wording.  The insurer also argued that the acts by ATC in changing the bank account information without verification constituted intervening acts that break the chain of causation.  The Sixth Circuit disagreed, holding that ATC immediately lost the money when it wired the money to the thief, and that the thief’s instructions to ATC directly caused the loss.  The Court also rejected an argument by the insurer that the policy required that the thief first gain access to ATC’s computer systems prior to triggering coverage, and that here, the thief did not hack into the email system to commit the fraud.  The Court ruled that the policy language was not so limited.

The insurer sought reconsideration of the ruling, which the Sixth Circuit recently denied.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Allen Sattler at [email protected].