Court Opinion

ID: 9795543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:31:02.696237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:14.995521
License: Public Domain

GEORGE, C. J.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion and in much of its analysis, with the understanding that nothing contained therein alters the established standard—not mentioned by the majority—governing an insurer’s evaluation of the reasonableness of a settlement offer in this context. “[I]n determining whether to settle[,] the insurer must give the interests of the insured at least as much consideration as it gives to its own interests . . . .” (Crisci v. Security Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425, 429 [58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 426 P.2d 173]; see also Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28, 44 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 855, 980 P.2d 407] [“The assumption of [the duty to defend] obligates the insurer to give at least as much consideration to the welfare of its insured as it gives to its own interests so as not to deprive the insured of the benefits of the insurance policy”].) An insurer assesses whether a settlement offer is reasonable by determining whether accepting the offer is “the most reasonable manner of disposing of the claim . . . .” (Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., supra, 66 Cal.2d at p. 430.)
Mosk, J., and Werdegar, J., concurred.