Cynthia Dyches Linthicum v. Mendakota Insurance Company, 687 F. App'x 854

Hopkins, driving intoxicated, struck and killed the Linthicums’ 11-year-old son; Hopkins had $25,000 automobile liability coverage with Mendakota.
Mendakota adjuster Moulton set reserves at policy limits, notified Hopkins of potential excess exposure, and engaged with plaintiffs’ attorney Bordeaux about settlement.
Bordeaux repeatedly delayed resolution pending criminal proceedings; on May 12, 2010 he sent a time-limited offer: $25,000 in full and final settlement "of their claims for the wrongful death of their child" in exchange for a full release, with acceptance deadline May 24; Mendakota did not respond.
Plaintiffs later settled the wrongful-death suit for $1.2 million and Hopkins assigned to them any claims against Mendakota; Mendakota paid policy limits and plaintiffs sued Mendakota for bad faith failure to accept the May 12 offer.
District court granted summary judgment for Mendakota, concluding the May 12 offer did not fully resolve potential claims (notably the decedent’s pre-death pain-and-suffering/estate claim) and thus Mendakota had no duty to accept.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mendakota acted in bad faith by not accepting a time-limited offer to pay policy limits that purported to settle only wrongful-death damages	Linthicum: offer was a full settlement of their claims; Mendakota ignored a reasonable opportunity to protect its insured and acted in bad faith	Mendakota: the offer expressly settled only wrongful-death claims and left open a separate estate/pain-and-suffering claim, so insurer had no duty to accept or negotiate further	Court: Affirmed for Mendakota — insurer had no duty because the offer did not fully resolve all potential claims against the insured
Whether the possibility of an estate/pain-and-suffering claim prevents an insurer’s duty to respond to a policy-limits demand	Linthicum: they did not and would not present an estate claim; the offer therefore should be treated as full resolution	Mendakota: plaintiffs had previously identified an "estate" claim and the law permits separate recovery for decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering, so the demand was a partial settlement	Court: The potential availability of an estate/pain-and-suffering claim meant the demand did not compel insurer to accept; summary judgment for insurer upheld

Mesa v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 799 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brightman, 580 S.E.2d 519 (Ga.) (insurer may be liable for excess judgment when acting in bad faith in refusing to settle)
S. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Holt, 416 S.E.2d 274 (Ga.) (insurer must give insured same faithful consideration as its own interest)
Baker v. Huff, 747 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App.) (insurer has no duty to respond to offers that do not fully settle claims within policy limits)
U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Evans, 156 S.E.2d 809 (Ga. Ct. App.) (care standard for insurer negotiating settlements)
Carroll Fulmer Logistics Corp. v. Hines, 710 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App.) (separate recoveries available for wrongful death and decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering)
Smith v. Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 430 S.E.2d 57 (Ga. Ct. App.) (individual as survivor and as estate administrator are legally distinct capacities)
Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Walden, 792 S.E.2d 754 (Ga. Ct. App.) (affirming awards to parents for wrongful death and estate pain-and-suffering)
Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Gentry, 564 S.E.2d 733 (Ga. Ct. App.) (same)