Hurvitz

Hurvitz v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 4th 918·135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 860·2003 Daily Journal DAR 6442·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5085
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 12, 2003B158885California1,573 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curry, J.

Appellants James S. Hurvitz, M.D., and his wife Jackie Hurvitz brought suit against respondent St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) for (1) bad faith breach of insurance contract based on St. Paul’s decision to settle a third party’s claims without the Hurvitzes’ consent and over their objections and (2) breach of oral settlement agreement. The trial court granted St. Paul’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Hurvitzes’ consent was not required and that no final settlement agreement had been consummated. We hold that where an insurance policy grants to the insurer the “right and duty” to defend any claim or suit for covered injury or damage, including claims and suits that are “groundless, false or fraudulent” and the “right to settle any claim or suit within the available limits of coverage,” the insurer need not obtain the insureds’ consent prior to settling with a third party even though it leads to the loss of the insureds’ potential claim for malicious prosecution, injures their reputation, or impacts their future insurability. We further agree with the trial court that no final settlement agreement was breached, and, therefore, affirm…

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.