CA · jury_instructions
CACI No. 2334
Bad Faith (Third Party)—Refusal to Accept Reasonable
Settlement Demand Within Liability Policy Limits—Essential
Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] breached the obligation
of good faith and fair dealing because [name of defendant] failed to accept
a reasonable settlement demand for a claim against [name of plaintiff]. To
establish [name of plaintiff]’s claim against [name of defendant], [name of
plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of plaintiff] was insured under a policy of liability
insurance issued by [name of defendant];
2. That [name of claimant] made a claim against [name of plaintiff]
that was covered by [name of defendant]’s insurance policy;
3. That [name of claimant] made a reasonable demand to settle [his/
her/nonbinary pronoun] claim against [name of plaintiff] for an
amount within policy limits;
4. That [name of defendant] failed to accept this settlement demand;
5. That [name of defendant]’s failure to accept the settlement demand
was the result of unreasonable conduct by [name of defendant];
and
6. [That a judgment was entered against [name of plaintiff] for a sum
of money greater than the policy limits.]
6. [or]
6. [That [name of defendant]’s failure to accept the settlement
demand was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s
harm.]
“Policy limits” means the highest amount of insurance coverage available
under the policy for the claim against [name of plaintiff].
A settlement demand for an amount within policy limits is reasonable if
[name of defendant] knew or should have known at the time it failed to
accept the demand that a potential judgment against [name of plaintiff]
was likely to exceed the amount of the demand based on [name of
claimant]’s injuries or losses and [name of plaintiff]’s probable liability.
However, the demand may be unreasonable for reasons other than the
amount demanded.
An insurance company’s unreasonable conduct may be shown by its
action or by its failure to act. An insurance company’s conduct is
unreasonable when, for example, it does not give at least as much
consideration to the interests of the insured as it gives to its own
interests.
New September 2003; Revised December 2007, June 2012, December 2012, June
2016, November 2021, May 2022
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- caci-2025
- Content hash
fd456c01c32b230b6e9f91deaaa92dab2dc00f9fa281ab9bbdc8490830818519
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.