Source: https://www.houghtonlawfirm.com/attyfees
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:13:54+00:00

Document:
The Plaintiff can successfully recover attorney’s fees and litigation in expenses in a number of scenarios in civil litigation. One such situation that many Plaintiff’s lawyers face involve cases in which the defense allows a rather simple clear fault case to drag on for months through stubborn conduct resulting in excessive time and expense. Georgia law allows for a remedy to deter this conduct.
O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 provides that litigation expenses may be allowed as damages “where the defendant has acted in bad faith, has been stubbornly litigious, or has caused the plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense.” Daniel v. Smith, 266 Ga. App. 637, 638 (2004).
The Plaintiff can recover her litigation expenses for stubbornly litigious conduct if the jury finds that a ‘bona fide controversy’ does not exist as to liability. Daniel, 266 Ga. App. at 641. The following jury charge was given and upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals in a case involving O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 claims: “If you find that bona fide controversy exists as to defendant's liability, then plaintiff would not be entitled to recover his expenses of litigation and attorney fees.” Daniel, 266 Ga. App. at 641.
Generally, a bona fide controversy does not exist where is fault is admitted by the Defendant. "[I]t is for the jury to determine whether there was a bona fide controversy, unless the facts preclude such a finding as a matter of law. Daniel v. Smith, 266 Ga. App. 637 (2004) citing Webster v. Brown, 213 Ga. App. 845, 846 (1994).
The extent of damages is a dispute in every personal injury case, but this is not the controlling factor as to whether or not there is a bona fide controversy.
The jury will be allowed to consider a Defendant’s admissions of liability and harm in deposition, despite his insistence that a bona fide controversy remains in this case. The Plaintiff lawyer needs to be mindful about keeping a good record of his time and advanced costs in the case to provide the Court a basis for awarding these litigation expenses.
Again, a Defendant’s purported dispute over damages does not prevent the jury from considering evidence of stubbornly litigious conduct under Georgia law. The Georgia Court of Appeals has found where the Defendant admits negligence but refuses to pay for the full extent of damages, a plaintiff can recover litigation expenses and attorney’s fees under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 for stubbornly litigious conduct. See Lamb v. R.L. Mathis Certified Dairy Company, 183 Ga. App. 455 (1987). The facts of Lamb involve an auto collision between plaintiff and defendant after which the defendant admits fault and offers to pay for some of the damages caused. 183 Ga. App. at 455. However, the defendant refused to pay for mechanical work on the engine and additional rental car fees. Id.
Despite this ‘acceptance of liability’ by the defendant in Lamb, the plaintiff was forced to file suit and made claims under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 because defendant refused to pay for the full extent of his damage. 183 Ga. App. at 455. There was no evidence of punitive conduct or bad faith in the actual transaction of this collision caused by the defendant in Lamb. Id. at 458. The trial court in Lamb entered a directed verdict against plaintiff on the issue of litigation expenses under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 removing it from the jury’s consideration. 183 Ga. App. at 455.
In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals in Lamb acknowledged that the defendant’s dispute over damages was an issue for trial: “The issue of defendant's liability for damages is uncontroverted; the only issue in this case is plaintiff's damages.” 183 Ga. App. at 458.
The Defendant cannot just adopt a ‘so sue me’ mentality without repercussions.
Accordingly, U-Haul Co. of Western Ga., like Buffalo Cab Co., is merely a decision which holds that certain evidence of the defendant's so-called "bad faith" occurring after a cause of action in tort arises may be admissible to demonstrate that he caused the plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense.
The scorched earth, ‘win at all cost’ mentality is poisoning the practice of law. Time and again, “Deny, delay & don’t pay” has been a consistent defense strategy in many clear liability wreck cases. Illuminate to the Court when there is no bona fide controversy as to liability. If a Defendant has simply adopted a “so sue me” position, and then litigated a case to death for months or years at direct additional costs to the Plaintiff, there are consequences. Hold them accountable in your next case.

References: § 13
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 § 13
 § 13