California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Martin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 228 Cal.App.2d 178, 39 Cal.Rptr. 342 (Cal. App. 1964):
It is argued by respondent that an insurance carrier need not be governed by whatever time limit counsel for plaintiff in a personal injury action may impose. This, no doubt, is true. The test is the one laid down by the courts, namely, that of good faith or bad faith of the insurer, and this is to be determined by the circumstances of each case. Unless plaintiff as assignee can convince the trier of fact that the carrier in this case did not exercise good faith, plaintiff cannot prevail. A similar argument to that made by respondent was urged in Brown v. Guarantee Ins. Co., supra, namely, that the imposition of liability in excess of policy limits would cause more injured claimants to propose settlement for the policy limits when the company is defending an insured who is apparently judgment proof. The court gave the answer that the insurer has nothing to fear so long as its refusal to settle is made in good faith. (155 Cal.App.2d at p. 696, 319 P.2d 69.)
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.