Filed 11/6/13 (unmodified version attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT PAUL REID, B241154 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 458121) v. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, ORDER MODIFYING OPINION and Defendant and Respondent. DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING [no change in judgment] THE COURT: IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed in the above-captioned matter on October 7, 2013, be modified as follows: In the first full paragraph on page 5, delete the third sentence beginning with “(In mid-September 2007”), and replace it with the following sentence: (In mid-September 2007, plaintiff’s insurer advised defendant’s adjuster, Mr. Schram, that plaintiff’s underinsured motorist coverage exceeded defendant’s policy limits.) There is no change in the judgment. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied. _____________________________________________________________________ BIGELOW, P. J. FLIER, J. GRIMES, J. Filed 10/7/13 (unmodified version) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT PAUL REID, B241154 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 458121) v. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Ronald M. Sohigian, Judge. Affirmed. The Yarnall Firm, Delores A. Yarnall; Ammirato & Palumbo, Bruce Palumbo; Dewitt Algorri & Algorri and Mark S. Algorri for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hager Dowling Lim & Slack, Alison M. Bernal and John V. Hager for Defendant and Respondent. . ____________________________________ SUMMARY This case involves an insurer’s duty to its insured to settle a third party claim within policy limits, when liability is clear and there is a substantial likelihood of a recovery in excess of policy limits. The question is whether the insurer, in the absence of any demand or settlement offer from the third party claimant, must initiate settlement negotiations or offer its policy limits, and if so how quickly it must do so, to avoid a claim of bad faith failure to settle. In this case, the insured’s liability was clear almost immediately after the collision. The insurer’s claims manager had decided, within a little over six weeks, that while the insurer needed medical records, the insurer must tender the policy limits to the third party claimant “as soon as we have enough [information] available to do so.” No settlement demand was made by the claimant, who filed suit against the insured three and one-half months after the collision. The medical records were not forthcoming from the claimant until seven months after the collision, and another three months passed before the insurer offered its policy limits. Under these circumstances, the trial court found the insurer not liable to its insured for bad faith failure to settle and granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm. An insurer’s duty to settle is not precipitated solely by the likelihood of an excess judgment against the insured. In the absence of a settlement demand or any other manifestation the injured party is interested in settlement, when …
Original document ES
