Sélectionner une page

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Basher/Nunn agreements between policyholders and third parties, which allow the insured to assume his own liability in exchange for his rights, to sue an insurer. Therefore, the insurer who did not participate in the underlying action remains in a subsequent bad faith action in combating the stigmatization of liability and/or damage assessment as a result of the previous action. In states such as Arizona, which have recognized agreements such as the Bashor/Nunn agreements in Colorado, insurers are regularly allowed to intervene in an underlying non-compliance action that involves negotiating the damaging component of the insurer`s potential liability for subsequent claims on the repulsiveness. The Colorado Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the preliminary proceedings. He noted that these decisions must first subject policyholders to « potential financial ruin » before they could protect themselves by transferring the risk to the disruptive insurer. This runs counter to Colorado`s general awareness that an insured can take positive steps to avoid the « potentially catastrophic » effects of his insurer`s bad faith. One of the ways in which an insured can protect himself from the bad faith of an insurer is to do exactly what James did: impose a judgment, yield the repugnant claim to the third party and guarantee the consent of the third party not to enforce the judgment against the insured. If the unworthy right is found to be worthless because the insured is not personally responsible, third parties will never agree to make judgments with non-performance agreements against the insured and the insured must be personally liable. Nunn stated that he was prepared to « not register, execute or otherwise enforce the convictions against James, as long as James respects in good faith his obligations under the settlement agreement. » Courts across the country are increasingly willing to allow policyholders to take responsibility and often compensate in certain situations. The plaintiff, with the judgment of admission, can then directly sue the insurer in hedging disputes to enforce the judgments.