In Camacho v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 11-cv-3111 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2012), applying Georgia law, the court held that communications between an insurer and joint outside defense counsel are not privileged in a subsequent bad faith action, but communications between an insurer and its in-house counsel are privileged. Here, the defendant insurer hired outside defense counsel to defend its insured in a wrongful death action. Plaintiff obtained a verdict in excess of insurance policy limits, and the insured assigned its claim for bad faith failure to settle within policy limits to plaintiff, waiving the attorney-client privilege with respect to the underlying action. Noting that no Georgia court had yet expressly held that the attorney-client privilege vanishes in a bad faith action where the same attorney represented both the insurer and the insured under a joint defense agreement, the court cited decisions from several other states, which have held the attorney-client privilege does not apply in the context of a claim for third-party bad faith by an insured against her insurer. The court held that where, as here, the joint defense doctrine applies, the insurer cannot assert attorney-client privilege over its communications with outside defense counsel regarding the defense of the underlying action unrelated to the issue of coverage. However, the insurer’s communications with its in-house claims counsel involving the rendering of legal services to the insurer remain privileged because there is no presumption that in-house counsel is employed to represent the interests of the insured as opposed to the insurer.