Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 California opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Crisci v. Security Insurancegreen2 sentences1980Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 426 P.2d 173 ], where the Supreme Court permitted recovery of damages for mental suffering in the case of bad faith refusal of an insurer to settle a claim against its insured in violation of a covenant of fair dealing. 1980Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 426 P.2d 173 ], where the Supreme Court permitted recovery of damages for mental suffering in the case of bad faith refusal of an insurer to settle a claim against its insured in violation of a covenant of fair dealing. | 4 | 6 |
Ivy v. Pacific Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences1980Co., 156 Cal.App.2d 652, 659 [ 320 P.2d 140 ].) When there is great risk of a recovery beyond the policy limits so that the most reasonable manner of disposing of the claim is a settlement which can be made within those limits, a consideration in good faith of the insured’s interest requires the insurer to settle the claim. 1980Co., 156 Cal.App.2d 652, 659 [ 320 P.2d 140 ].) When there is great risk of a recovery beyond the policy limits so that the most reasonable manner of disposing of the claim is a settlement which can be made within those limits, a consideration in good faith of the insured’s interest requires the insurer to settle the claim. | 3 | 3 |
Comunale v. Traders & General Insurancegreen2 sentences2021You must consider [name of defendant]’s conduct as a whole in making this determination.” 16 The Court held that “the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing requires the insurer to settle in an appropriate case.” (Comunale, supra, 50 Cal.2d at p. 659 .) “The insurer, in deciding whether a claim should be compromised, must take into account the interest of the insured and give it at least as much consideration as it does to its own interest. [Citation.] When there is great risk of a recovery beyond the policy limits so that the most reasonable manner of disposing of the claim is a se 2021You must consider [name of defendant]’s conduct as a whole in making this determination.” 16 The Court held that “the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing requires the insurer to settle in an appropriate case.” (Comunale, supra, 50 Cal.2d at p. 659 .) “The insurer, in deciding whether a claim should be compromised, must take into account the interest of the insured and give it at least as much consideration as it does to its own interest. [Citation.] When there is great risk of a recovery beyond the policy limits so that the most reasonable manner of disposing of the claim is a se | 2 | 9 |
Johansen v. California State Automobile Ass'n Inter-Insurance Bureaugreen2 sentences2021Bureau (1975) 15 Cal.3d 9 .) We reiterate the Court’s latest statement on the matter: “ ‘[A] good faith consideration of the insured’s interests may require the insurer to settle the claim within the policy limits. 2021Bureau (1975) 15 Cal.3d 9 .) We reiterate the Court’s latest statement on the matter: “ ‘[A] good faith consideration of the insured’s interests may require the insurer to settle the claim within the policy limits. | 2 | 4 |
Graciano v. Mercury Gen. Corp. CA4/1green2 sentences2023An unreasonable refusal to settle may subject the insurer to liability for the entire amount of the judgment rendered against the insured, including any portion in excess of the policy limits. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 718 , 724-725.) “An insured’s claim for bad faith based on an alleged wrongful refusal to settle first requires proof the third party made a reasonable offer to settle the claims against the insured for an amount within the policy limits.” (Graciano v. Mercury General Corp. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 414, 425 (Graciano).) However, 2022An unreasonable refusal to settle may subject the insurer to liability for the entire amount of the judgment rendered against the insured, including any portion in excess of the policy limits. [Citation.]’ ” (Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 718 , 724–725.) “An insured’s claim for bad faith based on an alleged wrongful refusal to settle first requires proof the third party made a reasonable offer to settle the claims against the insured for an amount within the policy limits.” (Graciano v. Mercury 9 General Corp. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 414, 425 (Graciano).) The plaintiff mus | 2 | 2 |
Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co.green2 sentences2025An unreasonable refusal to settle may subject the insurer to liability for the entire amount of the judgment rendered against the insured, including any portion in excess of the policy limits.” (Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 718, 724-725 (Hamilton).) An insurer’s “duty to settle arises because of the inherent conflict of interest created by the different risks faced by the insurer and the insured. 2023An unreasonable refusal to settle may subject the insurer to liability for the entire amount of the judgment rendered against the insured, including any portion in excess of the policy limits. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 718 , 724-725.) “An insured’s claim for bad faith based on an alleged wrongful refusal to settle first requires proof the third party made a reasonable offer to settle the claims against the insured for an amount within the policy limits.” (Graciano v. Mercury General Corp. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 414, 425 (Graciano).) However, | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.