reasonable settlement claim in California

2003In Isaacson , the court stated: "[I]f an insurer `erroneously denies coverage and/or improperly refuses to defend the insured' in violation of its contractual duties, `the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and may then maintain an action against the insurer to recover the amount of the settlement. . . .' [Citation.]" ( Isaacson, at p. 791, 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 , quoting Clark v. Bellefonte Ins.

2003In Isaacson , the court stated: "[I]f an insurer `erroneously denies coverage and/or improperly refuses to defend the insured' in violation of its contractual duties, `the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and may then maintain an action against the insurer to recover the amount of the settlement. . . .' [Citation.]" ( Isaacson, at p. 791, 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 , quoting Clark v. Bellefonte Ins.

1988Co. (1980) 113 Cal. App.3d 326, 335-336 [ 169 Cal. Rptr. 832 ].) Accordingly, if an insurer "erroneously denies coverage and/or improperly refuses to defend the insured" in violation of its contractual duties, "the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and may then maintain an action against the insurer to recover the amount of the settlement...." ( Clark, supra, 113 Cal. App.3d at p. 335 .) (7) Further, if an insurer wrongfully fails to provide coverage or a defense, and the insured then settles the claim, the insured is given the benefit of an evident

1988Co. (1980) 113 Cal. App.3d 326, 335-336 [ 169 Cal. Rptr. 832 ].) Accordingly, if an insurer "erroneously denies coverage and/or improperly refuses to defend the insured" in violation of its contractual duties, "the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and may then maintain an action against the insurer to recover the amount of the settlement...." ( Clark, supra, 113 Cal. App.3d at p. 335 .) (7) Further, if an insurer wrongfully fails to provide coverage or a defense, and the insured then settles the claim, the insured is given the benefit of an evident

2003Co. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 326, 335 , 169 Cal. Rptr. 832 .) In Lamb, at pp. 630-631, 40 P.2d 311 , the court held the insurer's denial of liability and refusal to defend was a breach of contract and released the insured from its obligation to leave the defense of the action to the insurer. [8] *111 ACE counters that its conduct is immaterial because under Powerine I, supra, 24 Cal.4th 945 , 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , 16 P.3d 94 , the indemnity duty does not arise until a court of law has ordered the insured to pay for injury to person or property.

1988In a later action against the insurer for reimbursement based on a breach of its contractual duty to defend the action, a reasonable settlement made by the insured to terminate the underlying claim against him may be used as presumptive evidence of the insured's liability on the underlying claim, and the amount of such liability. ( Kershaw v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1959) 172 Cal. App.2d 248, 256-257 [ 342 P.2d 72 ]; see Ritchie v. Anchor Casualty Co. (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d *792 245, 250 [ 286 P.2d 1000 ] and Lamb v. Belt Casualty Co. (1935) 3 Cal. App.2d 624, 631-632 [ 40 P.2d 311 ].) (8) Ther

2006Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 638, 644 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 449 ] [“when an excess insurer denies excess coverage for a third party claim, it waives the right to challenge the reasonableness of the primary insurer’s settlement of the claim”].) Summarized, California law provides that a defending insurer must consent to a settlement in order for there to be coverage, but “if an insurer ‘erroneously denies coverage and/or improperly refuses to defend the insured’ in violation of its contractual duties, ‘the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and may then main

2006Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 638, 644 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 449 ] [“when an excess insurer denies excess coverage for a third party claim, it waives the right to challenge the reasonableness of the primary insurer’s settlement of the claim”].) Summarized, California law provides that a defending insurer must consent to a settlement in order for there to be coverage, but “if an insurer ‘erroneously denies coverage and/or improperly refuses to defend the insured’ in violation of its contractual duties, ‘the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and may then main

1996“Language used in any opinion is of course to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court, and an opinion is not authority for a proposition not therein considered.” (Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524, fn. 2 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 393 P.2d 689 ].) 6 The opinion also cited Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 280 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].

1996“Language used in any opinion is of course to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court, and an opinion is not authority for a proposition not therein considered.” (Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524, fn. 2 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 393 P.2d 689 ].) 6 The opinion also cited Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 280 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].

1996“Language used in any opinion is of course to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court, and an opinion is not authority for a proposition not therein considered.” (Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524, fn. 2 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 393 P.2d 689 ].) 6 The opinion also cited Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 280 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].

1996“Language used in any opinion is of course to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court, and an opinion is not authority for a proposition not therein considered.” (Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524, fn. 2 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 393 P.2d 689 ].) 6 The opinion also cited Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 280 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 104 , 419 P.2d 168 ].

1995Co. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 220, 240-242 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 343 , 636 P.2d 32 ]; Zander v. Texaco, Inc. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 793, 802 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 561 ].) If an insurer, with notice of the pendency of the underlying action, wrongfully denies coverage or improperly refuses to provide its insured with a defense, then “ ‘the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and . . . then maintain an action against the insurer to recover the amount of the settlement . . . .’ [Citation.]” Isaacson v. California Ins.

1995Co. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 220, 240-242 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 343 , 636 P.2d 32 ]; Zander v. Texaco, Inc. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 793, 802 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 561 ].) If an insurer, with notice of the pendency of the underlying action, wrongfully denies coverage or improperly refuses to provide its insured with a defense, then “ ‘the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and . . . then maintain an action against the insurer to recover the amount of the settlement . . . .’ [Citation.]” Isaacson v. California Ins.

1995Co. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 220, 240-242 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 343 , 636 P.2d 32 ]; Zander v. Texaco, Inc. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 793, 802 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 561 ].) If an insurer, with notice of the pendency of the underlying action, wrongfully denies coverage or improperly refuses to provide its insured with a defense, then “ ‘the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and . . . then maintain an action against the insurer to recover the amount of the settlement . . . .’ [Citation.]” Isaacson v. California Ins.

1995Co. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 220, 240-242 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 343 , 636 P.2d 32 ]; Zander v. Texaco, Inc. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 793, 802 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 561 ].) If an insurer, with notice of the pendency of the underlying action, wrongfully denies coverage or improperly refuses to provide its insured with a defense, then “ ‘the insured is entitled to make a reasonable settlement of the claim in good faith and . . . then maintain an action against the insurer to recover the amount of the settlement . . . .’ [Citation.]” Isaacson v. California Ins.

1988In a later action against the insurer for reimbursement based on a breach of its contractual duty to defend the action, a reasonable settlement made by the insured to terminate the underlying claim against him may be used as presumptive evidence of the insured's liability on the underlying claim, and the amount of such liability. ( Kershaw v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1959) 172 Cal. App.2d 248, 256-257 [ 342 P.2d 72 ]; see Ritchie v. Anchor Casualty Co. (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d *792 245, 250 [ 286 P.2d 1000 ] and Lamb v. Belt Casualty Co. (1935) 3 Cal. App.2d 624, 631-632 [ 40 P.2d 311 ].) (8) Ther

1988In a later action against the insurer for reimbursement based on a breach of its contractual duty to defend the action, a reasonable settlement made by the insured to terminate the underlying claim against him may be used as presumptive evidence of the insured's liability on the underlying claim, and the amount of such liability. ( Kershaw v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1959) 172 Cal. App.2d 248, 256-257 [ 342 P.2d 72 ]; see Ritchie v. Anchor Casualty Co. (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d *792 245, 250 [ 286 P.2d 1000 ] and Lamb v. Belt Casualty Co. (1935) 3 Cal. App.2d 624, 631-632 [ 40 P.2d 311 ].) (8) Ther

1988In a later action against the insurer for reimbursement based on a breach of its contractual duty to defend the action, a reasonable settlement made by the insured to terminate the underlying claim against him may be used as presumptive evidence of the insured's liability on the underlying claim, and the amount of such liability. ( Kershaw v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1959) 172 Cal. App.2d 248, 256-257 [ 342 P.2d 72 ]; see Ritchie v. Anchor Casualty Co. (1955) 135 Cal. App.2d *792 245, 250 [ 286 P.2d 1000 ] and Lamb v. Belt Casualty Co. (1935) 3 Cal. App.2d 624, 631-632 [ 40 P.2d 311 ].) (8) Ther

1983Plaintiff cites sections of the California Government, Health and Safety, and Penal Codes which she claims create a statutory duty in the coroner to identify decedent and notify plaintiff that he had custody of the remains. “[A] presumption of negligence arises from the violation of a statute which was enacted to protect a class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member against the type of harm which the plaintiff suffered as a result of the violation of the statute.” (Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 164 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel (1970) 3 Cal.3d 756,

1983Plaintiff cites sections of the California Government, Health and Safety, and Penal Codes which she claims create a statutory duty in the coroner to identify decedent and notify plaintiff that he had custody of the remains. “[A] presumption of negligence arises from the violation of a statute which was enacted to protect a class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member against the type of harm which the plaintiff suffered as a result of the violation of the statute.” (Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 164 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel (1970) 3 Cal.3d 756,

1983Plaintiff cites sections of the California Government, Health and Safety, and Penal Codes which she claims create a statutory duty in the coroner to identify decedent and notify plaintiff that he had custody of the remains. “[A] presumption of negligence arises from the violation of a statute which was enacted to protect a class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member against the type of harm which the plaintiff suffered as a result of the violation of the statute.” (Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 164 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel (1970) 3 Cal.3d 756,

1983Plaintiff cites sections of the California Government, Health and Safety, and Penal Codes which she claims create a statutory duty in the coroner to identify decedent and notify plaintiff that he had custody of the remains. “[A] presumption of negligence arises from the violation of a statute which was enacted to protect a class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member against the type of harm which the plaintiff suffered as a result of the violation of the statute.” (Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 164 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel (1970) 3 Cal.3d 756,