No Bad Faith Found where Carrier Promptly Offered Policy Limits and Subsequent Demands Were Not Sufficiently Definite
ABSTRACT: The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, ruling no bad faith where the carrier promptly offered policy limits. The claimant's subsequent demands for a 537.065 agreement were not sufficiently definite to constitute a “reasonable opportunity to settle.”
On December 3, 2024, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of insurance carrier and against insured who was suing for bad faith failure to settle.
Within a few weeks of receiving notice of the claim, the carrier had offered policy limits to counsel for the injured party. Rather than accepting the offer, the claimant’s attorneys made numerous requests for information and suggested that the settlement would need to include a 537.065 agreement.
Several months later, counsel for the claimant indicated they would settle the case for policy limits, but only if the insured entered into a 537.065 agreement. In the same correspondence, counsel for the claimant requested that the carrier provide a copy of the release it was proposing. The carrier responded with a release that included the carrier as a released party.
In the bad faith lawsuit, counsel for the insured argued this constituted a rejection of the claimant’s offer to settle within policy limits, and that it was evidence of the carrier’s failure to protect the interests of its insured.
The court of appeals disagreed. Instead, it found that the claimant’s demand for a settlement that included a 573.065 agreement was not sufficiently definite because claimant’s counsel never provided a proposed version of the agreement. As a result, and in view of the fact that the carrier had offered its policy limits on numerous occasions, the court found that the carrier did not act in bad faith. Instead, according to the court, claimant’s attorneys “simply refused [the carrier’s] attempts to pay its policy limits to release [the insured].”
The takeaway from this decision is that Missouri courts will not find an insurer liable for bad faith where there is a documented history of the carrier’s attempts to settle the case for the policy limits, and where plaintiff’s counsel conditions the settlement on terms that are not sufficiently clear to constitute a reasonable opportunity to settle.
Bryan Roy Escabusa v. Safe Auto Insurance Company, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 876, WL4940663 (Motion for rehearing/transfer pending.)related services
About Insurance Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Insurance Blog examines topics and developments of interest to insurance carriers, with a particular focus on the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, including Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Learn more about the editor, Philip Sumner, and our Insurance practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Insurance Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Insurance Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Insurance Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.