Allstate argues that it appropriately advised the defendant of settlement options and possible outcomes, as well as the steps he could take to avoid an excess judgment. (Credit: forenna/Adobe Stock)
According to Law.com, in 2024, Allstate policyholder and defendant Donny Browning pleaded guilty to criminal charges and was convicted of second-degree homicide by vehicle for his role in a collision that killed a motorcyclist two years prior. Browning also accepted liability in a civil case regarding the accident.
In 2022, Browning reportedly turned left too early at an intersection, which blocked oncoming traffic and led to the motorcyclist, Edward Stephens, crashing into his car. The collision threw Stephens from his bike and in front of Browning’s car, which subsequently ran him over. Stephens died at the scene.
In June 2025, the estate of the motorcyclist was awarded $10 million for pain and suffering, plus an additional $14.5 million for the value of his life. In total, including pre-judgment interest, the court entered a $27.1 million judgment for the plaintiff.
The day after this judgment, Allstate filed a declaratory action against both Browning and the victim’s estate, claiming the insurance company did everything in its power to defend Browning and settle the underlying case. Allstate alleges that the plaintiffs refused to acknowledge its acceptance of the initial policy limit demand.
In the complaint, Allstate writes: “It is Allstate’s understanding that underlying claimants and/or Browning will enforce the entire judgment against Allstate. In light of the judgment in the underlying lawsuit, Allstate is now faced with real and imminent risk of substantial harm that it will be forced to pay more than its $25,000 policy limits.”
Law.com reports that counsel for Stephens’ estate says the plaintiffs submitted two $20 million settlement offers that were rejected prior to the trial. Settlement negotiations allegedly continued up to the morning of the trial but were unsuccessful.
However, Allstate argues that it appropriately advised the defendant of settlement options and possible outcomes, as well as the steps he could take to avoid an excess judgment. The insurer also claims it attempted to accept the plaintiff’s initial pre-suit policy limits demand.
The plaintiff’s counsel claims that Allstate failed to fulfill all terms and conditions of their initial offer, and that since it did not respond in a way identical to the terms of their demand that there was no settlement.
The case is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.