BayRock Mortgage Corporation (“BayRock”) filed a complaint against Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago Title”) under OCGA § 33-4-6 (a), alleging a bad faith refusal to pay a claim made by BayRock under a title insurance policy issued by Chiсago Title. Chicago Title answered, denied BayRock’s claims, and counterclaimed for declaratory relief and litigation expenses. The parties thereafter filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Chicago Title’s mоtion, denied BayRock’s motion, and authorized Chicago Title to quitclaim the refinanced property to Bay-Rock in full sаtisfaction of its duties and obligations under the Policy. 1 BayRock appeals, and finding no genuine issue of material fact remaining, we affirm.
Upon motion for summary judgment, it is the movant’s burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact is at issue and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). The movant may discharge such burden by reference to affidavits, depositions, and оther documentary evidence of record showing no evidence in support of the nonmovant’s case. Id. After the movant discharges his burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on his pleadings, but instead must come forward with evidence establishing a triable issue. OCGA§ 9-11-56 (e);
Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins,
So viewed, the evidence shows that Chicago Title issued the Policy to BayRock in connection with a refinance mortgage loan that BayRock provided on a residential property owned by Delondo Pоole in Kennesaw. The United States thereafter secured a forfeiture lien on Poole’s property upon a suсcessful prosecution against him for drug trafficking. Poole then defaulted on his mortgage payment, and, on June 10,2005, BayRock submitted its claim for coverage under the Policy. When Chicago Title failed to pay the claim within 60 days, BayRock initiated the instаnt lawsuit.
*19 Pursuant to its rights under the Policy, Chicago Title thereafter sought to cure the title defect in negotiations with the United States to acquire a first priority lien position for BayRock, and, on December 9,2005, the United States agreed to convey its interеst in the property to Chicago Title for $49,000. On December 12, 2005, Chicago Title offered to have the United States convey the property to BayRock in satisfaction of its obligations under the terms of the policy. BayRock declined this offer, dеmanding that Chicago Title pay its June 10 claim for the full value of the Policy, and continued the prosecution of the instant lawsuit.
BayRock challenges summary judgment against it and for Chicago Title, arguing that after it submitted the claim at issue, Chicago Title was obligated under OCGA § 33-4-6 (a) either to pay BayRock the full proceeds of the Policy or provide it a clear title within 60 days. We disagree.
To prevail on a claim for an insurer’s bad faith under OCGA § 33-4-6,
2
the insured must prove: (1) that the claim is covered under the рolicy, (2) that a demand for payment was made against the insurer within 60 days prior to filing suit, and (3) that the insurer’s failure to pay was motivаted by bad faith. OCGA § 33-4-6. Since the statute imposes a penalty, its requirements are strictly construed.
Howell v. Southern Heritage Ins. Co.,
BayRock attempts to equate the submission of a claim under the Poliсy with the “demand for payment” required by the bad faith statute. That position, however, is directly contravened by relevant case law. In such regard, “[i]t has long been the law that in order to serve as a bad faith demand, the demand must be made at a time when immediate payment is due. An insured cannot legally demand immediate payment if the insurer has additional time left under the terms оf the insurance policy in which to investigate or adjust the loss.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Stedman v. Cotton States Ins. Co.,
Here, the record shows thаt the Policy authorized Chicago Title to investigate upon its receipt of BayRock’s claim. Thus, as BayRock concedes in its appellate brief, its demand was untimely made because it was not then immediately due.
Stedman,
BayRock has failed to come forward with any evidencе, express or implied, showing that its demand alerted Chicago Title that it was facing a bad faith claim for nonpayment of а loss within 60 days. In light of the foregoing, we need not address BayRock’s remaining arguments seeking reversal of the judgment below. 3
Due to thе inadequacies of BayRock’s bad faith demand and the fact that Chicago Title met all its obligations under the Policy, we find thаt the trial court did not err in denying BayRock’s motion for summary judgment and granting Chicago Title’s cross-motion.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Prior to the trial court’s rulings on summary judgment, BayRock refused Chicago Title’s offer to provide BayRock title to the property and $15,000 in settlement of its claims.
OCGA § 33-4-6 (a) provides that an insurer owes a bad faith penalty and reasonable attorney fees “[i]n the event of a loss which is covered by a policy of insurance and the refusal of the insurer to pay the same within 60 days after a demand has bеen made by the holder of the policy and a finding has been made that such refusal was in bad faith. . ..”
Chicago Title’s motion to strike BayRock’s reply brief on appeal insofar as it challenges the trial court’s suggestion at its hearing on summary judgment that BayRock settle its lawsuit is therefore dismissed as moot.