Ninth Circuit: Excess Insurers Must Tread Carefully When Rejecting Demands Exceeding Primary Limits (CA)

Under California law, a liability insurer has a good faith duty to reasonably settle claims within its policy limits. In Diamond Heights Homeowners Association v. National American Insurance Co., the California Court of Appeal held that where a proposed settlement demand exceeds a defending primary insurer’s limits and has been approved by the insured and the primary insurer, an excess insurer has three options: (1) approve the proposed settlement; (2) reject it and assume the insured’s defense; or (3) reject it and face a potential lawsuit from the insured. 227 Cal.App.3d 563, 580-581 (1991). The rationale for this rule is that the excess insurer cannot force the primary insurer to continue defending a case that should resolve within the excess insurer’s limits.      Read the article………….


Related Articles

Disclosure Packets and Resale Certificates: Statutory Updates (VA)

Since our last postings on the subject of disclosure packets, the General Assembly has adopted several minor Code changes to

4th Circuit Court of Appeals (NC) rules that property management company is not subject to the FDCPA

A June 3, 2014 ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina) is good news for

What is a Covered “Collapse” for Insurance Purposes?

Recently, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued the opinion of Kings Ridge Community Association v. Sagamore Insurance Company, clarifying