Opinion ID: 3064039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Liberty’s Alleged Bad Faith

Text: Under Georgia law, “the insurer’s failure to act with diligence and good faith in securing the necessary information [] will preclude the grant of summary judgment to the insurer on the issue of the insured’s compliance with policy prerequisites.” Id. at 441-42. Hall argues that any failure by him to perform contractual prerequisites to suit should be excused because Liberty acted in bad faith. He argues that Liberty repeatedly requested EUOs, despite knowing that Hall was unavailable due to incarceration. 5 Hall also argues that he acted in good faith by agreeing to one EUO session and that it is of no consequence that due to disagreements between the attorneys over recording and admissibility, the session did not proceed as scheduled. The district court, however, explained, “Plaintiff’s failure to provide any requested records would constitute grounds for summary judgment even if Plaintiff and the other individuals claiming losses had participated in EUOs.” We agree that adequate grounds for affirmance exist and thus need not consider Hall’s arguments that he made a good faith effort to schedule EUOs. 8 Hall’s argument is unpersuasive given the circumstances. Liberty had a contractual right to conduct EUOs and procure documents in the year following the fire. Liberty was patient and reasonable, sending at least nine letters over the course of eight months to Hall’s attorney in an attempt to schedule EUOs and procure documents. Hall does not deny receipt of Liberty’s letters and, despite having the benefit of being represented by counsel, did not propose any alternative ways of conducting examinations or obtaining the requested information. Given that Liberty’s requests were essentially ignored, it behaved reasonably by continuing to reach out to Hall’s attorney and requesting dates in which EUOs could be conducted and documents could be exchanged. There is no evidence that Liberty’s requests were made in bad faith. We thus hold that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Hall’s breach of contract claim for failure to satisfy conditions precedent to suit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. 9