McReynolds v. Krebs, 290 Ga. 850

Krebs sued McReynolds and GM for injuries from a collision where McReynolds's car struck the GM vehicle in Krebs's care; McReynolds cross-claimed against GM for contribution and set-off.
After Krebs settled with GM for an undisclosed amount, the trial court dismissed McReynolds's cross-claims under OCGA § 51-12-33 as amended by the Tort Reform Act of 2005.
The jury found McReynolds liable to Krebs and awarded about $1.246 million, with judgment entered for the full amount.
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of cross-claims.
Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to address (1) whether apportionment applies when the plaintiff is not at fault and (2) whether the insurer’s settlement response was a counteroffer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does OCGA § 51-12-33 require apportionment when plaintiff is not at fault?	McReynolds argues subsection (a) limits apportionment to plaintiff fault.	Krebs argues the statute applies to multiple tortfeasors regardless of plaintiff fault.	Yes; apportionment applies even if plaintiff is not at fault.
Was McReynolds's insurer counteroffer or unconditional acceptance to Krebs's settlement offer?	McReynolds contends there was no binding settlement due to counteroffer.	Krebs argues it was an acceptance with a condition.	Insurer's response was a counteroffer; no binding settlement formed.

Frickey v. Jones, 280 Ga. 573 (Ga. 2006) (extrinsic evidence can show counteroffer in settlement)
Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga. App. 695 (Ga. App. 1994) (illustrates settlement concepts and acceptance vs counteroffer)
Weller v. Brown, 266 Ga. 130 (Ga. 1996) (no contribution where no joint or joint and several liability)
Broda v. Dziwura, 286 Ga. 507 (Ga. 2010) (set-off/applicability principles for fault allocations)