Insurer Not Obligated to Commit Insurance Claims Suicide
Benjamin D. Markuson, Erik Saterbo, and Stephen Saterbo v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation; Crawford
Law Group, P.A., a Florida corporation; and Larry Walker, No. 2D21-2443,
Florida Court of Appeals, Second District (September 15, 2023)
Benjamin Markuson and Erik and Stephen Saterbo appealed the entry final
summary judgment based upon the trial court's conclusion that State Farm
was under no legal duty to its insured to accept any or all of the
three proposals for settlement made by Mr. Markuson.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The underlying case arises from a 2006 automobile accident involving
Erik Saterbo and Mr. Markuson. At the time of the accident, Erik was
operating a vehicle owned by his father, Stephen. Due to his injuries,
Mr. Markuson sued the Saterbo. The Saterbos had an insurance policy with
State Farm which provided policy limits of $300,000.00 against
liability for bodily injuries sustained in an auto accident. And on
January 15, 2009, State Farm authorized the Crawford Law Group, P.A.-the
firm retained by State Farm to defend the Saterbos-to make a settlement
offer to Mr. Markuson to resolve his case for the policy limits. The
offer was not accepted.
In return, Mr. Markuson would execute a release of all his claims
against the Saterbos and a satisfaction of the aforementioned consent
judgment. The proposal made no indication that State Farm would be
released from any bad faith liability. State Farm declined to accept
these proposals, and the case continued to trial. Following a jury
trial, Mr. Markuson recovered a total of $3,084,074.00, a sum
considerably greater than the coverage afforded.
The settlement offers by Mr. Markuson formed the basis of a bad faith
complaint against State Farm where Markuson and the Saterbos sued with a
seven count complaint against State Farm, Crawford Law Group, P.A., and
Larry Walker-State Farm's agent. The alleged bad faith occurred when
State Farm failed to settle the personal injury action by declining
three of Mr. Markuson's proposals for settlement.
The trial court concluded that State Farm had no duty to enter into a
consent judgment that was in excess of the policy limits "as a matter of
law." It further found that State Farm never withdrew its offer of the
policy limits. Thus, the trial court determined that "State Farm did
not act in bad faith when it did not agree to or negotiate with respect
to any of the three proposals."
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The Florida Court of Appeals concluded that, as a matter of law, the
trial court correctly determined that State Farm had no duty to enter
such an agreement. Thus, where there was no duty to accept the
proposals, declining the proposals could not serve as the basis of the bad faith claim. The circuit court erred by entering a final judgment in favor of State Farm to the extent the plaintiffs' claims raised other theories of bad faith and remanded the case to trial on the other issues.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance is a means of protecting against the risk of loss for
accidentally injuring a third person up to the limits of the policy.
Insurers have no obligation to expose themselves to an excess verdict and the court of appeals concluded that State Farm had no duty because entering into a consent judgment, for purposes of expediting bad faith litigation, would force the insurer to pay an excess judgment when its only contractual obligation was to defend its insured and, if there is a judgement, to pay the full limit of liability. To accept the offer that the plaintiff suggested as evidence of bad faith would be to commit financial suicide and violate the clear terms of its policy.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
