An insured deserves better.

• Author: Smith, Michael J.
• Position: Letters - Letter to the Editor

The November article, "Florida's New Good Faith Duty on an Insurer Not to Settle" misses the mark. Farinas merely requires an insurer to investigate and evaluate potential claims so as to best protect the insured. The authors' assertion that, "The tensions created by Farinas may well need to be addressed by the legislature" is preposterous. The insured purchases protection when purchasing the policy. If complete protection is not possible, Farinas merely requires that the protection be maximized.

The carrier's conduct in Farinas was outrageous. It indiscriminately settled claims and left the insured exposed to the largest potential claim.

It then turned around and sought a declaration that--after putting the insured in the maximum position of peril--it did not even owe the insured a defense. As the article's citation to Marsh indicates, the carrier's liability is not absolute. It merely has to engage in settlement practices that eliminate (if possible) the risk to the insured and, if complete protection is not possible, minimize the insured's total exposure. Since insurance companies are claims professionals engaged in the business of risk analysis, that...