Srm Group, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 308 Ga. 404

Travelers sued SRM for unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums after an audit; SRM counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11.
After a four-day trial the jury awarded Travelers $174,858 on its claim but awarded SRM $174,858 in the aggregate (including $117,000 in bad-faith attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11).
Travelers moved for JNOV or a new trial; the trial court denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict generally but reversed the award of attorney fees, holding (following Byers and Sanders) that a plaintiff-in-counterclaim cannot recover under OCGA § 13-6-11 when the counterclaim is compulsory.
SRM petitioned for certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court on whether a plaintiff-in-counterclaim with a compulsory counterclaim may recover attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11.
The Georgia Supreme Court concluded Sanders and Byers were wrongly decided, overruled them (and related footnote authority), held that a plaintiff-in-counterclaim may seek fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 so long as it asserts a viable, independent claim (whether permissive or compulsory), and reversed Division 2 of the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a plaintiff-in-counterclaim asserting a compulsory counterclaim can recover attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11	A plaintiff-in-counterclaim becomes a plaintiff as to that claim and may recover fees if it asserts an independent claim, regardless of permissive vs. compulsory label	Byers/Sanders rule: fees under § 13-6-11 are unavailable to plaintiff-in-counterclaim where counterclaim is compulsory (not independent/arising separately)	Overruled Byers/Sanders; plaintiff-in-counterclaim may recover fees under § 13-6-11 if it prevails on a viable, independent claim, whether permissive or compulsory
Whether the court should adhere to precedent (Byers) under stare decisis	Byers is wrongly reasoned and unsupported by statute or precedent; it creates unworkable and inequitable results	Precedent should be followed for stability	Court applied stare decisis factors and overruled Byers and related authority due to unsound reasoning, limited reliance interests, and practical problems
Application to this case: whether SRM was entitled to recover fees	SRM prevailed on independent claims for breach and bad faith and thus may recover fees under § 13-6-11	Travelers argued the Court of Appeals correctly barred fees under Byers	Court held SRM was entitled to seek and recover fees; reversed Division 2 of the Court of Appeals

Byers v. McGuire Props., Inc., 285 Ga. 530 (2009) (previously held plaintiff-in-counterclaim could not recover § 13-6-11 fees for compulsory counterclaims; overruled)
Sanders v. Brown, 257 Ga. App. 566 (2002) (Court of Appeals decision equating "independent" with permissive counterclaims; criticized and disapproved)
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. SRM Group, Inc., 348 Ga. App. 136 (2018) (Court of Appeals opinion reversing § 13-6-11 award under Byers; Supreme Court reversed that part)
Vogtle v. Coleman, 259 Ga. 115 (1989) (discussed the requirement that § 13-6-11 claims travel with an independent ground; did not limit independence to permissive counterclaims)
Ballenger Corp. v. Dresco Mech. Contractors, Inc., 156 Ga. App. 425 (1980) (explained that requiring separate independent claims to seek § 13-6-11 relief avoids inequity and "race to the courthouse" results)
Beall v. F. H. H. Constr., Inc., 193 Ga. App. 544 (1989) (defendant characterized as plaintiff-in-counterclaim for an independent counterclaim and allowed to recover litigation expenses under § 13-6-11)