The question of extracontractual exposure can be a jury question when the claimant's damages are great and the insured's likely liability is in excess of policy limits. Extracontractual, "bad faith" exposure can be a claim that goes to the jury in this context, even if initiating settlement negotiations when there is no settlement demand may not be conceptualized by lawyers of a given jurisdiction as a "legal duty." This is the majority rule and it plays out in many cases, in many places. See, e.g., Stalley v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 6:14-cv-1074-Orl-28DAB, 2016 WL 1752764, at *8-*9 (M.D. Fla. April 29, 2016) (denying liability insurer's motion for summary judgment because fact issues remained including whether carrier "should have resolved issues of damages and coverage" and whether it should have offered to settle claim within policy limits before it ultimately offered to do so, under Florida law which follows rule quoted by Court that "'[w]here liability is clear, and injuries so serious that a judgment in excess of the policy limits is likely, an insurer has an affirmative duty to initiate settlement negotiations.'"); Kleinsasser v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., No. CIV-16-102-M, 2016 WL 1583664, at *2-*3 (W.D. Okla. April 19, 2016) (denying liability insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff automobile driver's bad faith claim based on the carrier's settlement of the automobile passenger's claim under Oklahoma law, including quotation by the Court that Oklahoma law imposes "'an affirmative duty to initiate settlement negotiations if an insured's liability is clear and injuries of a claimant are so severe that a judgment in excess of policy limits is likely.'").
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments