Steil v. FLA. PHYSICIANS'INS. RECIPROCAL

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a settlement may not be enforced against the carrier if it is unreasonable in amount or tainted by bad faith, and adopting the two-part inquiry
• holding that in a case involving a consent judgment, a settle- ment can be enforced against the insurer so long as it is not “unreasonable in amount or tainted by bad faith”
• holding same and noting the general rule that where an insurer refuses to defend, its insured may obtain a reasonable settlement despite policy language to the contrary
• “By refusing to defend Steil’s claim, the carrier left Walker to his own devices to protect himself in the best way possible.”
• dynamics of Miller-Shugart settlements make settlement amount more suspect than in other consent settlements because a defendant with little to lose may agree to an inflated judgment amount in order to avoid personal liability
• suspicion of collusion and fraud led court to deny effect to settlement and assignment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).