the risk of the Durham litigation was shifted from Guest to Místate under the terms of the contract, Místate points out, and Guest does not dispute, that the contract does not involve distribution, or sharing, of the risk among others. See 1 Holmes & Rhodes, supra, § 1.3, at 10 (noting that “[r]isk sharing connotes not only a transfer of risk (risk-shifting) to others but a distribution (sharing) of the risk among the others”); Robert E. Keeton & Man I. Widiss, Insurance Law § 1.3, at 13-14 (1988) (observing that not all methods of spreading risk require insurance). Without the element of risk distribution, Guest’s contract with Místate is no more than a private indemnity agreement. See Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. New Freedom Mortgage Corp., 288 Ga.App. 642, 655 S.E.2d 269, 275 (2007) (<HOLDING>). {62} To the extent Guest argues her contract
holding that a closing protection letter offering to indemnify a mortgage company was not an insurance contract where although issued by an insurance company there was no distribution of the risk holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer holding that an insurance company had to indemnify defendant driver pursuant to policy because shooting that caused accident was determined to be accidental holding a variable annuity issued by an insurance company to be a covered security