Southern General Insurance v. Holt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that insured who assigned claim against insurer to third party had forfeited right to recover damages on that claim
• holding that where the evidence showed that liability for an accident was clear and damages exceeded the policy limits, a question of fact existed as to whether an insurance company acted in bad faith by refusing to settle
• noting that, in determining an insurer’s liability for failure to settle a claim, “[t]he jury generally must decide whether the insurer, in view of the existing circumstances, has accorded the insured the same faithful consideration it gives its own interest”
• holding insurer may be liable for tortious refusal to settle where plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit offered to settle for the policy limits and insurer failed to respond within ten-day period required under the terms of the offer
• affirming jury’s verdict in favor of assignee for insurer’s bad faith failure to settle comprised of full value of excess-verdict in underlying personal injury action
• affirming verdict of $83,000 in actual/compensatory damages to insured’s assignee on claim against Southern General seeking $67,000 plus interest for the insurance company’s bad faith failure to settle

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).