A Video Recitation of Crisci v. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven, Conn.

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rosina-crisci-v-security-ins-co-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and shttps://youtu.be/ok3Q2wa1K_k and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3900 posts. 

A jury awarded Mrs. DiMare $100,000 and her husband $1,000. After an appeal (DIMARE V. CRESCI, 58 CAL.2D 292, 23 CAL.RPTR. 772, 373 P.2D 860) the insurance company paid [66 Cal.2d 429] $10,000 of this amount, the amount of its policy. The DiMares then sought to collect the balance from Mrs. Crisci. A settlement was arranged by which the DiMares received $22,000, a 40 percent interest in Mrs. Crisci’s claim to a particular piece of property, and an assignment of Mrs. Crisci’s cause of action against Security. Mrs. Crisci, an immigrant widow of 70, became indigent. She worked as a babysitter, and her grandchildren paid her rent. The change in her financial condition was accompanied by a decline in physical health, hysteria, and suicide attempts. Mrs. Crisci then brought this action.

The trial court found that defendant ‘knew that there was a considerable risk of substantial recovery beyond said policy limits’ and that ‘the defendant did not give as much consideration to the financial interests of its said insured as it gave to its own interests.’ That is all that was required. The award of $91,000 must therefore be affirmed.

In determining whether an insurer has given consideration to the interests of the insured, the test is whether a prudent insurer without policy limits would have accepted the settlement offer.

Crisci v. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven, Conn., 66 Cal.2d 425, 58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 426 P.2d 173 (Cal. 1967)
ZALMA OPINION

It is important that claims professionals understand why there exists a tort of bad faith. The treatment of Mrs. Crisci that drove her to suicide when a minimally $100,000 case could have settled for less than the policy limits of only $10,000 was egregious. By presenting the entire decision claims personnel can better understand why they are required to deal fairly and in good faith when defending an insured and should determine whether – if there was no limit – the settlement offer would or should have been accepted.