A recent case from California, Barickman vs. Mercury Casualty, 2 Cal.App.5th 508 (2016) illustrates the perils that may arise when an insurance company, evidently playing hardball with its insured, refuses to deviate from its “form” releases.
In Barickman, the Mercury’s insured (McDaniel) injured two individuals (Barickmand and McInteer) in a car accident in which McDaniel was found to have been intoxicated while driving his car. McDaniel was criminally prosecuted and there was the possibility that McDaniel, as part of any sentence in the criminal proceeding, might be ordered to pay restitution to the two injured parties.
Mercury insisted that Barickman and McInteer sign its “form” release. Barickman and McInteer’s counsel requested a minor modification to Mercury’s “form” release. That minor modification would have clarified that the release would not affect or prejudice Barickman’s and McInteer’s entitlement to receive any restitution that might be ordered of McDaniel. Mercury, continuing to insist that Barickman and McInteer sign Mercury’s “form” release refused to agree to this minor modification.
Because of Mercury’s intransigence in refusing to accept the injured parties’ minor amendment, there was no settlement between Barickman and McInteer on the one hand and Mercury on the other – even though Mercury had agreed in principle to pay the policy’s limits, $15,000 to each of the injured parties.
Barickman and McInteer thereupon sued McDaniels for damages arising from their personal injuries. That action was ultimately settled, with a stipulated judgment in favor of McInteer for $2.2 million and in favor of Barickman for $800,000. As part of the settlement, McDaniel assigned her rights against Mercury to Barickman and McInteer in exchange for their agreement not to attempt to collect the judgment against her. Mercury thereupon paid Barickman and McInteer the policy limits - $15,000 to each of the injured parties.
Barickman and McInteer then commenced a lawsuit against Mercury for breach of contract and bad faith. In that suit, they alleged that Mercury’s failure to make an offer without unacceptable terms and conditions, its refusal to settle the case within policy limits when it had the opportunity to do so, and its unwillingness to make efforts to reach a reasonable settlement constituted a breach of its obligation of good faith and fair dealing.
Barickman’s and McInteer’s bad faith case was tried before a referee. The referee determined that Mercury had acted unreasonably and awarded Barickman and McInteer damages of $3 million – $2.2 million to McInteer and $800,000 to Barickman. Mercury appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. It affirmed the referee’s finding that Mercury unreasonably refused to accept the injured parties’ modified release. It further determined that Mercury’s eventual offering of policy limits was not sufficient to defeat the injured parties’ claim of bad faith. The Court of Appeal also affirmed the referee’s determination that Mercury’s refusal to accept the modified release, as proposed by counsel for the injured parties, or, at least, to have presented those parties in a timely fashion with a revised release that included the proposed modification was entirely unreasonable.
In-house counsel may be inclined to insist that injured parties agree to their company’s “form” release without any modifications and essentially on a take-it-or leave it basis. This conduct may generate bad faith liability, as shown in the Barickman case. As touchstone for bad faith liability is an examination of whether the insurer acted reasonably “under all the circumstances” (Shade Foods Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, 78 Cal. App. 4th 847, 888 (2000)), the insurer’s conduct in refusing minor modifications of its “form” release may be trigger a bad faith claim. Thus, although Mercury in Barickman did initially act in good faith by offering McDaniels’ policy limits, there were serious questions about whether Mercury did all within its power to effectuate a settlement once the injured parties accepted the offer but proposed a slightly modified version of the accompanying release.
Barickman stands as an object lesson to insurers. While institutional pressure may push insurance company in-house counsel to resist any changes to their “form” releases, Barickman suggests that by doing so – especially in the face of reasonable modifications proposed by the parties injured by the company’s insured – may create additional and potentially unforeseen liability problems.
- Partner
Peter S. Selvin, Chair of ECJ's Insurance Coverage and Recovery Department, is a business trial lawyer with more than 30 years of experience. While he specializes in the areas of insurance coverage and international litigation, his ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014