BROADCASTS.com

b'

Insurer Not Obligated to Commit Insurance Claims Suicide\\n\\nBenjamin D. Markuson, Erik Saterbo, and Stephen Saterbo v. State Farm \\nMutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation; Crawford \\nLaw Group, P.A., a Florida corporation; and Larry Walker, No. 2D21-2443,\\n Florida Court of Appeals, Second District (September 15, 2023)\\n\\nBenjamin Markuson and Erik and Stephen Saterbo appealed the entry final \\nsummary judgment based upon the trial court\'s conclusion that State Farm\\n was under no legal duty to its insured to accept any or all of the \\nthree proposals for settlement made by Mr. Markuson.\\n\\nFACTUAL BACKGROUND\\n\\nThe underlying case arises from a 2006 automobile accident involving \\nErik Saterbo and Mr. Markuson. At the time of the accident, Erik was \\noperating a vehicle owned by his father, Stephen. Due to his injuries, \\nMr. Markuson sued the Saterbo. The Saterbos had an insurance policy with\\n State Farm which provided policy limits of $300,000.00 against \\nliability for bodily injuries sustained in an auto accident. And on \\nJanuary 15, 2009, State Farm authorized the Crawford Law Group, P.A.-the\\n firm retained by State Farm to defend the Saterbos-to make a settlement\\n offer to Mr. Markuson to resolve his case for the policy limits. The \\noffer was not accepted.\\n\\nIn return, Mr. Markuson would execute a release of all his claims \\nagainst the Saterbos and a satisfaction of the aforementioned consent \\njudgment. The proposal made no indication that State Farm would be \\nreleased from any bad faith liability. State Farm declined to accept \\nthese proposals, and the case continued to trial. Following a jury \\ntrial, Mr. Markuson recovered a total of $3,084,074.00, a sum \\nconsiderably greater than the coverage afforded.\\n\\nThe settlement offers by Mr. Markuson formed the basis of a bad faith \\ncomplaint against State Farm where Markuson and the Saterbos sued with a\\n seven count complaint against State Farm, Crawford Law Group, P.A., and\\n Larry Walker-State Farm\'s agent. The alleged bad faith occurred when \\nState Farm failed to settle the personal injury action by declining \\nthree of Mr. Markuson\'s proposals for settlement.\\n\\nThe trial court concluded that State Farm had no duty to enter into a \\nconsent judgment that was in excess of the policy limits "as a matter of\\n law." It further found that State Farm never withdrew its offer of the\\n policy limits. Thus, the trial court determined that "State Farm did \\nnot act in bad faith when it did not agree to or negotiate with respect \\nto any of the three proposals."\\n\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\n\\nThe Florida Court of Appeals concluded that, as a matter of law, the \\ntrial court correctly determined that State Farm had no duty to enter \\nsuch an agreement. Thus, where there was no duty to accept the \\nproposals, 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.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nInsurance is a means of protecting against the risk of loss for \\naccidentally injuring a third person up to the limits of the policy. \\nInsurers 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.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.