Federal Court Rules Insured Cannot Dismiss Coverage Case When Recoupment Agreement Exists

A federal court in Georgia recently ruled that an insured cannot voluntarily dismiss its coverage lawsuit against an insurer after an underlying claim has settled, particularly when the parties have entered into a recoupment agreement.
The June 2025 decision, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, underscores the binding nature of such agreements and affirms an insurer’s right to have coverage disputes adjudicated even after contributing to a settlement. This case serves as a critical reminder for policyholders and insurers about the strategic implications of using recoupment agreements to resolve complex claims while preserving legal rights.
The dispute in BOJ of WNC, LLC vs. Westfield National Insurance Company arose after a Bojangles Famous Chicken & Biscuits franchise operator was sued in a personal injury case. The operator, BOJ, sought insurance coverage for defense and indemnification from its insurer, Westfield.
While the coverage lawsuit was pending, Westfield agreed to defend BOJ under a reservation of rights. The underlying personal injury lawsuit was eventually resolved through a mediated settlement. As part of this resolution, Westfield and BOJ entered into a recoupment agreement, a contract wherein Westfield agreed to contribute to the settlement amount with the express understanding that the court would later determine the final coverage obligations, potentially allowing Westfield to recover its contribution.
Following the settlement, BOJ moved to voluntarily dismiss the coverage lawsuit. The policyholder argued that because Westfield had contributed to both the defense and the settlement, the core issues of the dispute were resolved, and continuing the case would be an inefficient use of judicial resources.
In response, Westfield argued that the dispute was not over. The insurer contended that it was induced to contribute to the settlement solely based on the terms of the recoupment agreement, which preserved its right to have the court adjudicate the coverage issue.
Dismissing the case, Westfield asserted, would prejudice its rights and allow BOJ to circumvent the very agreement that enabled the settlement.
The court sided decisively with Westfield, denying BOJ’s motion for dismissal. The judge’s analysis focused on the significant legal prejudice the insurer would suffer.
The court found that the recoupment agreement created a substantial right for Westfield—the right to a judicial determination of coverage as a precondition for recovering its settlement contribution.
The court explained, “If the Court were to dismiss this action before adjudicating the coverage issue, an essential condition of the Agreement would never be satisfied and Westfield’s ability to recover under the Agreement could be thwarted.” Dismissal would effectively nullify a key provision of the contract between the insurer and the insured.
In its final order, the court denied the motion to dismiss, lifted the stay on the proceedings, and allowed the parties time to amend their pleadings to incorporate claims related to the recoupment agreement. The decision reinforces that a recoupment agreement is a powerful tool that allows insurers to facilitate settlements without waiving their right to contest coverage. The coverage litigation between Bojangles and Westfield will now move forward.
Read the full decision here. &