California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Andrade v. Jennings, 54 Cal.App.4th 307, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 787 (Cal. App. 1997):
10 In Pruyn v. Agricultural Ins. Co., supra, 36 Cal.App.4th 500, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, the appellate court observed that for purposes of bringing a direct action against an insurer under Insurance Code section 11580, a third party judgment creditor must have a final judgment against the insured but "a number of cases have held that such judgment need not be based on a contested or adversarial trial, but may rest upon a default hearing held following a settlement [citations] or an uncontested trial where the insured settled with the claimant and thereafter presented no defense. [Citation.] These circumstances necessarily involve significant independent adjudicatory action by the court, thus mitigating the risk of a fraudulent or collusive settlement between an insured and the claimant. Final judgments entered under either of these circumstances are binding on the insurer which has wrongfully abandoned its insured and may be enforced directly under Insurance Code section 11580. [p] There is a sound reason why this should be so. The insurer not only had a right to participate in and to control the litigation, it had a duty to do so. An insurer which has wrongfully abandoned its insured should not be heard to complain or allowed to relitigate the trial court's judgment merely because the default or uncontested proceedings followed, and were related to, an agreement between the insured and the claimant. Whatever the terms of the settlement, the entry of judgment was based on an independent review and adjudication of the evidence by the trial court. An insurer which has breached its contract is properly bound by the result of such trial proceedings.... [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 516-517, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 295.) However, the appellate court cautioned: "We exclude, of course, those trial proceedings which are clearly a patent sham collusively designed to create a judgment for which liability insurance coverage would then exist. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 517, fn. 16, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 295.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.