Approaching Strict Liability of Insurer for Refusing to Settle within Policy Limits
Lundstrom, Gilbert G.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by5
- 1975Morales v. Automatic Vending Service, Inc. P.R.
- 1974Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America N.J.
- 1974Knobloch v. Royal Globe Insurance N.Y. App. Div.
- 1971Dumas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance N.H.
- 1970Tyler v. Grange Insurance Wash. Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Conflicting interests must be served whenever insurance settlements are negotiated. A direct conflict arises when an insurance company has an opportunity to settle a claim against the insured within the policy limits, the company declines the offer, and subsequently a judgment is rendered in excess of the policy coverage. The insured seeks redress against the company for that portion of the judgment exceeding the actual coverage on the theory that his liability would have been totally extinguished had the insurance company accepted the offer to settle. On the other hand, the insurer will argue that by litigating, the company seeks to lessen its own liability within the policy limits. The courts have resolved who must pay the excess judgment by determining whether the insurer breached its "duty" to the insured by refusing to accept the settlement offer. I. The Dilemma II. Present Standards of Liability and Damages … A. Liability … B. Damages III. Criticism of Present Liability Standards IV. Reflections on an Absolute Liability Standard