Like virtually all commercial
insurance policies, the American Nuclear Insurers ("ANI") policy at
issue in Babcock & Wilcox Co. contained a "consent
to settle clause" providing that the insured Babcock & Wilcox Co. ("B&W")
"shall not, except at its own cost, make any payment, assume any
obligation or incur any expense".
After ANI paid for independent
defense counsel to defend B&W under a reservation of rights in radiation
exposure claims, B&W entered into a $95 million settlement that was less
than the insurance policy’s limits and to which ANI objected. ANI then refused to reimburse B&W arguing
that it had violated the policy's "consent to settle" clause.
Although the trial court
ruled - - and the jury found - - that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and
non-collusive and that B&W was entitled to reimbursement, the Superior
Court reversed adopting the Taylor v. Safeco Ins. Co., 361 So.2d 743
(Fla. Ct. App. 1998) rule that an insured’s obligation to honor "consent
to settlement clauses" depends on whether the insured accepts an insurer’s
tender of a qualified defense. 2013 WL 3456969, pg. 22.
If it accepts a defense
subject to a reservation tendered by the insurer, the insured is bound to the consent
to settlement clauses' terms and the insurer retains full control of the
litigation. Id. Under these
circumstances, if an insurer objects to settlement, the insurer is only
responsible for the settlement costs if the insured can show that the insurer’s
refusal to accept the settlement constituted "bad faith". 2013 WL 3456969, pg. 22.
Conversely, if it declines an
insurer’s tender of a qualified defense and furnishes its own defense, the
insured retains full control of the litigation including control over a
settlement decision, and the insured may recover its fair and reasonable
defense and indemnity costs even when the insurer objects to settlement, if the
settlement was entered into in good faith.
Id.
No comments:
Post a Comment