United States: Excess Insurer Has Duty To Consent To A Reasonable Settlement Or Assume Policyholders Defense

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Excess Insurer Had Duty to Consent to a Reasonable Settlement or Assume Policyholder's Defense

In a diversity action, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that under California law, where an excess insurer is asked to consent and contribute to a reasonable settlement that invades the excess layer and has been approved by both the primary carrier and the insured, its options are to: (1) approve the proposed settlement; (2) reject it and assume the defense; or (3) reject the settlement, decline the defense, and face a potential lawsuit for breach of the policy. See Teleflex Med. Inc. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA (March 21, 2017 Slip Opinion ("Slip Op."), citing Diamond Heights Homeowners Ass'n v. Nat'l Am. Ins. Co., 227 Cal.App.3d 563 (1991) ("Diamond Heights").

In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected the excess insurer's contention that Diamond Heights was "effectively overruled" by the California Supreme Court's decision in Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., 11 Cal.4th 1 (1995), which held that an insurer will not be found to have waived a coverage defense absent evidence of intentional relinquishment. The Teleflex court held that Diamond Heights remains the law in California and is not inconsistent with Waller.

The Ninth Circuit also held that the "genuine dispute doctrine" – to the effect that an insurer does not act in bad faith where there is a genuine dispute as to the insurer's coverage liability – is subsumed within Judicial Counsel of California Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) 2331. Where CACI 2331 is given, a court may properly refuse to also give a separate special instruction on the doctrine.

Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the district court was not required to deny all unsegregated attorney fees from an award made under the California Supreme Court's decision in Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985). So long as the chosen apportionment appears fair, such award will be affirmed on appeal.

Discussion of the Teleflex Decision

Background

LMA North America, Inc./Teleflex Medical Inc. ("Teleflex") distributes laryngeal mask airway products. In 2007, it sued its competitor for patent infringement in federal district court. The competitor filed counterclaims for trade disparagement and false advertising, premised on allegedly false and disparaging statements made in Teleflex's advertising. The competitor sought $28 million from Teleflex.

At the time of the action, Teleflex was insured by a $1 million general liability insurance policy (issued by a different carrier) and $14 million excess policy issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company ("National Union"). The primary insurer agreed to defend the counterclaims which were potentially covered under the policies.

In January 2011, a mediation was held between the parties. Teleflex's primary insurer attended the mediation; National Union did not attend but was provided daily updates from defense counsel. During the mediation, the parties reached a conditional settlement wherein the competitor would pay Teleflex $8.75 million for the patent claims and Teleflex would pay $4.75 million for the disparagement claims. The settlement was conditioned on approval and funding from Teleflex's insurers.

Teleflex's primary insurer approved of the settlement and committed its full $1 million limit. National Union requested an updated liability and damages analysis from defense counsel so that it could consider the proposed settlement. Defense counsel's previous analysis, provided a couple of weeks before, estimated that Teleflex's potential exposure could reach as high as $10 million.

Defense counsel provided an updated analysis, including his belief that $4.75 million was a fair and reasonable amount to settle the disparagement claims and advised that the primary insurer had already approved the settlement and committed its limits. Defense counsel asked National Union for a prompt reply, advising that "time is scarce."

Defense counsel sent further requests to National Union seeking approval of the settlement or a promise to assume the defense. National Union ultimately declined to consent to the settlement but did not advise whether or not it would assume the defense.

Having no assurance from National Union, Teleflex agreed to finalize the settlement and immediately advised National Union. In response, National Union agreed to take over Teleflex's defense if it could "undo" the settlement. Teleflex advised that the settlement could not be undone.

Following execution of the settlement, Teleflex sued National Union for breach of contract and bad faith arising from its refusal to either contribute toward the settlement or assume immediate defense of the action.

After the court denied National Union's summary judgment motion based on its "no voluntary payments" and "no action" clauses, the action was tried to a jury, which awarded Teleflex $3.75 million in contract damages; $1.2 million in attorney fees, expert fees, and costs; and $1.1 million in prejudgment interest.

Decision by the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit, considering the issues under California law, affirmed the judgment in all aspects and rejected the various challenges made by National Union.

First, the court found the district court did not err in applying the rule of law set forth in Diamond Heights, and rejected National Union's argument that Diamond Heights was "effectively overruled" by Waller.

In Diamond Heights, a California Court of Appeal held that, subject to certain conditions, a primary insurer may negotiate a good faith settlement of a claim in an amount that invades excess coverage and, notwithstanding the excess insurer's "no action" clause, bind the excess insurer to such settlement even where the excess insurer did not consent to such settlement. 227 Cal.App.3d at 580-581. In reaching this decision, the Diamond Heights court found that an excess insurer may waive its right to assert the "no action" clause if it rejects a reasonable settlement and at the same time fails to offer to assume the defense of the insured. Id. at 581; see also Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 135 Cal.App.4th 958, 987 (2006).

In affirming the judgment, the Ninth Circuit found that Diamond Heights applied, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court's decision in Waller, which expressly rejects an automatic waiver rule in California. See Slip Op., pp. 10-21.

In finding that Diamond Heights is not inconsistent with Waller, the Ninth Circuit found that: (1) Waller did not mention Diamond Heights; (2) California appellate courts have relied on Diamond Heights since Waller; and (3) whereas Waller stands for the proposition that an insurer does not waive its right to rely on policy provisions simply by failing to mention such provisions in a claim letter, Diamond Heights "is not so much about the waiver of an insurer's contractual right than it is about an insurer's breach of a contractual obligation." Slip Op., pp. 14-19. "Whereas Waller prevents a policy from being expanded beyond the contacting parties' intent, the covenant of good faith underlying Diamond Heights is grounded on 'honoring the reasonable expectations created by the autonomous expressions of the contracting parties.'" Slip Op. at 18, quoting Tymshare, Inc. v. Covell, 727 F.2d 1145, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Scalia, J.).

In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that, "[t]he wisdom of the Diamond Heights rule may not be beyond reasonable debate," and that the rule "arguably gives the insured and primary insurers more than was bargained for, at least if excess insurers have not raised their rates to accommodate for additional costs imposed by the rule." Slip Op. at 18. However, the court went on to advise that "the rule is fairly supported by other insurance principles and policy considerations" and that it is "long established" that the "no voluntary payment" and "no action" clauses "do not create absolute rights to veto settlements." Id.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected National Union's attempts to distinguish Diamond Heights on its facts. See Slip Op., pp.19-21. In this part of its analysis, the court found that the facts in the present case were either similar to or slightly more egregious than those involved in Diamond Heights, specifically noting National Union's "foot-dragging" for months in considering the proposed settlement. Id. at 20. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the settlement was reasonable and not the product of collusion.

In upholding the application of Diamond Heights, the Ninth Circuit held that an excess insurer cannot rely upon its "no voluntary payment" and "no action" clauses in its policy to reject a reasonable settlement without agreeing to assume the defense of the action.

Second, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury that Teleflex had to prove its contract claim under the preponderance of the evidence standard rather than by the clear and convincing evidence standard normally applied to waiver. See Slip Op., pp. 21-22. The court held that in analogous cases, California courts require the insured to show that the insurer wrongfully failed or refused to provide coverage or a defense to the insured and that the insured thereafter entered into a reasonable settlement of the litigation. The Ninth Circuit held that after the insured makes a prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to the insurer to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the insured's settlement was not reasonable or was the product of fraud or collusion. Slip Op., pp. 21-22.

The court further advised that, "[a]pplying this burden-shifting rule to claims under the Diamond Heights rule would mean that the insured's prima facie burden includes, in addition to the elements listed above, showing that the insurer was 'afforded a reasonable opportunity of undertaking the defense in order to avoid settlement.'" Id. at 22. Once the insured sustains its burden on this additional element, the insurer must show that it was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to evaluate the settlement and decide whether to undertake the defense. While the Ninth Circuit found that the district court did not apply this burden-shifting framework, it found that any error was harmless to National Union. Id.

Third, the court rejected National Union's argument that the bad faith judgment was error due to instructional error and lack of substantial evidence. With respect to the alleged instructional error, the court found that the district court correctly found the "genuine dispute doctrine" subsumed within CACI 2331. Slip Op., pp. 23-24. The court held that CACI 2331 instructs the jury that a finding of bad faith requires five elements: (1) the insured suffered a loss covered under the policy; (2) the insurer was notified of the loss; (3) the insurer unreasonably failed to make or delayed payment of the policy benefits; (4) the insured was harmed; and (5) the insurer's failure or delay is a substantial factor in causing the insured's harm. Slip Op., p. 23 fn.4. The Ninth Circuit, relying on McCoy v. Progressive W. Ins. Co., 171 Cal.App.4th 785, 792-794 (2009), held that a trial court may refuse to give a special instruction on the genuine dispute doctrine where CACI 2331 is given because if there is a genuine dispute as to coverage, then the insurer did not withhold its payment unreasonably. See Slip Op., p. 24. Having concluded there was no instructional error on the genuine dispute doctrine, the court found substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.

Lastly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed over $1.2 million in attorney fees awarded under Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985). See Slip Op., pp. 25-26. In finding the district court's apportionment fair (10% allocated to the bad faith claims and 90% to the breach of contract claims), the Court of Appeals held that the district court was not required to deny all unsegregated fees. So long as the chosen appointment seemed fair, it would not find an abuse of discretion under the circumstances.

Click here to read the Ninth Circuit's opinion.

Excess Insurer Has Duty To Consent To A Reasonable Settlement Or Assume Policyholders Defense

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions