Opinion ID: 1694656
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Infinity Had a Duty to Advise Berges of Taylor's Settlement Offer

Text: The Second District determined, as an alternative basis for reversing the judgment, that Infinity did not owe a duty to advise Berges of Taylor's offer because the offer contemplated settling within policy limits. See Berges, 806 So.2d at 510. We thus address Berges' argument that the Second District erred in holding that Infinity did not have a duty to inform and advise Berges of Taylor's offer for settlement. Neither the Second District nor Infinity has cited a Florida case that supports the broad proposition that an insurer has no duty to inform its insured of a settlement offer that is within the policy limits. [10] The Second District's holding misapplies this Court's precedent and is contrary to Gutierrez, in which this Court held that an insurer's duty of good faith specifically obligates it  to advise the insured of settlement opportunities, to advise as to the probable outcome of the litigation, to warn of the possibility of an excess judgment, and to advise the insured of any steps he might take to avoid same.  386 So.2d at 785 (emphasis supplied). Where the insured reasonably relies on the insurer to conduct settlement negotiations, and the insurer fails to disclose settlement overtures to the insured, the jury may find bad faith. Powell, 584 So.2d at 14-15. The duty to inform the insured of settlement opportunities is one of the duties subsumed within the duty of good faith owed by an insurer to an insured. The failure to inform the insured of the settlement offer does not automatically establish bad faith; it is simply one factor for the jury to consider in determining whether the insurer acted in bad faith. See id. at 14 (concluding that the lack of a formal offer to settle does not preclude a finding of bad faith, but is merely one factor to be considered by the jury); Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Am. Cas. Co., 390 So.2d 761, 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (same). Therefore, the Second District erred in ruling as a matter of law that Infinity did not breach its good faith duty to inform and advise Berges of settlement opportunities.