Coleman

Coleman v. REPUBLIC INDEM. INS. CO. OF CAL.

Good Law
132 Cal. App. 4th 403·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1376·2005 Daily Journal DAR 10711·33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 744·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7924
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 2005B172638California4,924 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mallano, J.

In Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 116 , 758 P.2d 58 ] (Moradi-Shalal), the Supreme Court held that a third party claimant—an individual who is injured by the alleged negligence of an insured party—does not have a private right of action against the insurer for unfair settlement practices. This case presents the question, one of first impression in California, of whether that rule applies where the third party claimant is insured by the same insurer as the other party.

We hold that Moradi-Shalal bars such an action because the coincidental fact that plaintiffs are insured by the same insurer as the other party does not change plaintiffs’ position as strangers to the other party’s insurance policy and as adversaries to the insurer. Thus, the insurer owes no duty of good faith and fair dealing to plaintiffs in settling their claims against the other party.

We also conclude that where there is no duty of good faith and fair dealing, there is no duty that would give rise to a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Finally, we determine that the insurer’s conduct here does not reach the level of outrageousness…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.