# Blue Ridge Insurance v. Jacobsen

> California Supreme Court · May 10, 2001 · 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 535

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795543

## Case

- **Full name:** BLUE RIDGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRIGITTE JACOBSEN Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 10, 2001
- **Citations:** 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 535; 25 Cal. 4th 489; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 4583; 22 P.3d 313; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3736; 2001 Cal. LEXIS 3087
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by George
- **Judges:** Brown, George, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 60 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795543

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that, “[i]f an insurer could not unilaterally reserve its right to later assert noncoverage of any settled claim, it would have no practical avenue of recourse other than to settle and forgo reimbursement. An insured’s mere objection to a reservation of right would crea…
- observing that the insured’s objection to a reservation of rights “would create coverage contrary to the parties’ agreement in the insurance policy and violate basic notions of fairness”
- holding an insurer may seek reimbursement for settlement of uncovered claims where the insured is aware of the reservation but acquiesces

## Opinion text

GEORGE, C. J.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion and in much of its analysis, with the understanding that nothing contained therein alters the established standard—not mentioned by the majority—governing an insurer’s evaluation of the reasonableness of a settlement offer in this context. “[I]n determining whether to settle[,] the insurer must give the interests of the insured at least as much consideration as it gives to its own interests . . . .” (Crisci v. Security Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425, 429 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 426 P.2d 173 ]; see also Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28, 44 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 855 , 980 P.2d 407 ] [“The assumption of [the duty to defend] obligates the insurer to give at least as much consideration to the welfare of its insured as it gives to its own interests so as not to deprive the insured of the benefits of the insurance policy”].) An insurer assesses whether a settlement offer is reasonable by determining whether accepting the offer is “the most reasonable manner of disposing of the claim . . . .” (Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., supra, 66 Cal.2d at p. 430 .)
Mosk, J., and Werdegar, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795543. Public record. Not legal advice.