The $300,000 Glenwood Settlement Is Off: On September 23, 2026 Georgia’s Court of Appeals Ruled That “Not Aware of” Other Insurance Is Not the Same as “There Is No” Other Insurance

As of October 8, 2026, there is no $300,000 Glenwood settlement. In a published opinion dated September 23, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Georgia upheld a trial court’s ruling that Glenwood Motel Enterprises, Inc. — the company that operates an OYO Hotel — never formed a binding settlement with Lewayne Martin, the man who sued it. The opinion ends: “we affirm the trial court’s denial of Glenwood’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement.”

The reason is one phrase in a sworn statement. Martin’s offer required an affidavit “attesting that there is no additional liability coverage available — whether primary, excess, umbrella, or otherwise.” Glenwood’s owner swore instead that she was “not aware of any insurance policies in effect on October 2, 2023, that provide or may provide coverage.” The court held that this “was not ‘identical’ and ‘without variance of any sort’” to the offer: it confirmed the owner’s “present lack of awareness of a fact” rather than “the specific assurance that there was no other insurance.” Under Georgia contract law, an acceptance that varies from the offer is not an acceptance.

The facts below come from the court’s opinion; they are the court’s summary, viewed in the light most favorable to Martin, and the underlying injury claims remain allegations.

• October 2024: Martin files a personal injury suit alleging he was “violently attacked at the OYO Hotel and sustained significant injuries.” He also named other companies that are not part of the appeal.
• July 17, 2025: Martin offers to settle for $300,000, “which represents the coverage limits in an insurance policy that Great Lakes Insurance SE … issued to Glenwood.” Glenwood has 21 days to accept and must pay by certified funds within 10 days after accepting, with the affidavit. The letter warns that failure to “strictly comply” is a rejection. It does not include a form affidavit or required wording.
• August 7, 2025: Glenwood accepts and sends the check within the deadline, promising an affidavit confirming that no coverage exists beyond the $300,000 limit.
• Afterward: The owner’s “not aware of” affidavit arrives. Martin says it is insufficient; Glenwood asks for help crafting acceptable language; none is provided and Glenwood sends no second affidavit. Martin returns the money.
• Trial court: denies Glenwood’s motion to enforce, saying it was bound by precedent requiring “exact literal compliance,” and certifies the ruling for immediate appeal. The Court of Appeals grants the interlocutory application on March 4, 2026 (No. A26I0139).
• September 23, 2026: affirmed.

Nobody outside the lawsuit gets anything from this case. It is a single personal injury suit between named parties, not a class action, so there is no claim form, no settlement website, no administrator and no deadline for the public. If you received an email or text saying you are owed money from a “Glenwood settlement” and asking for bank details or a fee, it did not come from this case. The ruling also has nothing to do with other businesses that use the Glenwood name.

For the parties, the result is that the $300,000 policy-limits offer is gone and, as far as the opinion shows, the personal injury claims are unresolved. The opinion carries the court’s standard notice that motions for reconsideration “must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision.” We have not checked the docket for a reconsideration motion or a petition to the Supreme Court of Georgia, and the opinion does not name the trial court. We also do not know whether the parties have talked since; the opinion does not say what the claim might be worth beyond the policy limit.

The panel leaned on Wright v. Spearman, 376 Ga. App. 121 (2025), a 2-1 decision holding that an insurer’s added blank notary lines on a release turned an acceptance into a counteroffer. Quoting it, the court said an offeree must comply with even “stringent” or “petty” conditions, “particularly where, as here, the offer explicitly states” that anything less is a rejection. It also cited Jervis v. Amos (2021), where no settlement formed because the affidavit of other insurance was never executed and returned.

The court was not comfortable with the result. A footnote repeats a warning that “plaintiffs sometimes structure offers not to reach settlements, but rather to elicit rejections” — the classic setup for a later bad-faith claim against an insurer that let a limits offer slip — and concludes that the terms of the offer, “we are constrained to find,” support affirming. Presiding Judge Dillard wrote separately that Georgia’s statute on pre-suit offers, OCGA § 9-11-67.1, did not apply: it covers only claims “arising from a motor vehicle collision,” and this case “deals with” general contract law.

The practical takeaway, as Insurance Business put it on September 24, 2026: an affidavit saying “not aware of” other coverage and one saying “there is no” other coverage are not the same thing. If you are the one sending a demand, the case shows how strictly Georgia courts read your conditions; if you are the defendant or insurer, mirror the offer’s wording exactly and fix any objection before the deadline instead of waiting for the other side to draft it for you.