1981), that an offer to settle is not a prerequisite to the imposition of liability for an insurer's bad faith refusal to settle, but is merely one factor to be considered. Although an offer of settlement was once considered a necessary element of a duty to settle, 31 Fla.Jur.2d Insurance § 818, at 295 (1981), this court held in General Acc. The lack of a formal offer to settle does not preclude a finding of bad faith. We reverse that ruling for the following reasons.
Gancho industrial vector 2d trial#
At the close of the plaintiff's case, Prudential moved for a directed verdict which the trial court granted without articulating a basis for its ruling. According to the expert, if Prudential had properly handled the claim, a more favorable result would have been obtained for the insured. The expert testified that in cases such as this, with clear liability, severe injuries, and minimal policy limits, settlements are standard insurance industry practice in the community. Powell filed suit against Prudential alleging that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by not exploring settlement possibilities and by failing to advise him of the probable outcome of the litigation.Īt trial, Powell presented expert testimony that Prudential was aware, early on in the case, that the value of the claim vastly exceeded the policy limits. The trial resulted in a jury verdict of $250,000 against Powell. Two days later, Goldner's attorney called Prudential and informed the claims adjuster that the lawsuit had already been filed and that the policy limits were rejected. On March 16, sixty-two days after the accident, a Prudential claims adjuster called Goldner's attorney and left word with his secretary that Prudential was tendering the policy limits. The attorney again stated that his goal was to "promptly proceed with settlement of this cause within policy limits." Prudential did not respond, nor did it inform Powell of his potential liability or of Goldner's correspondence. When Prudential had not responded by February 9, Goldner's attorney sent a third letter describing Goldner's dire financial situation and asking to be informed of the policy limits within the next three days. the inducement for my client to settle within policy limits is with a view toward prompt and immediate resolution of the matter." The letter stated that Goldner wanted to avoid the transfer and requested that the policy limits be disclosed within ten days "so that we may promptly resolve this matter within policy limits. He also informed Prudential that the hospital planned to transfer the patient to Jackson Memorial Hospital as an indigent unless the insurer accepted financial responsibility. In the letter, Goldner's attorney advised Prudential that Goldner was "in need of immediate funds" as medical bills had already exceeded $20,000, and that his client had no other insurance. A second letter was sent by certified mail on February 3. On January 22, 1982, Prudential received a letter from Goldner's attorney describing the injuries, informing the insurer that Goldner would be hospitalized for an extended period, and requesting that Prudential disclose the policy limits. Within days of the accident, Prudential evaluated Powell's liability as 80-100% and, in acknowledgment of the severity of the victim's injuries, placed the $10,000 policy limits in reserve to pay Goldner's claim. One of the pedestrians, Goldner, suffered serious injuries. The facts giving rise to the lawsuit are as follows: On January 13, 1982, while driving her father's car, appellant's daughter struck two pedestrians from behind as they walked along the road.
We hold that those facts are only two of a number of circumstances to be weighed by the fact-finder, and reverse. The question presented is whether evidence that the claimant made no specific monetary demand, and subsequently rejected the insurer's tender of the policy limits, entitle the insurer to a judgment as a matter of law without consideration of other circumstances. A directed verdict was entered for the insurer at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case in this action for bad faith failure to settle an insurance claim.
0 kommentar(er)
