holding that an insurance company which chose not to defend its insured could not later deny coverage by asserting the “legally obligated to pay” provision in the policy after the insured reached a settlement where the injured party agreed to collect only against insurance proceeds
How later courts described this case
- holding that an insurance company which chose not to defend its insured could not later deny coverage by asserting the “legally obligated to pay” provision in the policy after the insured reached a settlement where the injured party agreed to collect only against insurance proceeds
- holding that if a liability insurer is informed of an action against its insured, but, declines to defend the insured, the insurer may be held to a consent judgment entered in the action absent fraud or collusion
- holding that if a liability insurer is informed of an action against its insured but declines to defend the insured, the insurer may be held to a consent judgment entered in that action, absent fraud or collusion
- “By refusing to defend Steil’s claim, the carrier left Walker to his own devices to protect himself in the best way possible.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1064 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.