The Georgia Court of Appeals turned Georgia indemnity law on its head in a Monday opinion issued in a case where King & Spalding clients, who had been ordered to pay Troutman Pepper $4.7M, asked the court for their money back, according to defendant-appellee attorney J. Randolph “Randy “Evans of Squire Patton Boggs.

While the court determined that Evans’ clients wouldn’t need to pay the $4.7 million back, it also reversed a trial court order requiring the plaintiff-appellants to pay attorney fees and litigation costs. According to Evans, the opinion boils down to this: If an insured can borrow the money with interest for a defense, then they have not suffered irreparable injury and cannot enforce the duty to defend.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]