Rogers v. Chicago Insurance Company- The 4th DCA of Florida recently held that statutory language requiring that any settlement of a malpractice case be in the best interests of the insured, means the interests of the insured’s rights under the insurance policy, not some collateral effect unconnected with the claim. Section 627.4147(1) of the Florida Statutes requires malpractice insurance policies to grant the insurer the sole authority to settle a claim where settlement is within policy limits. The statute also sets a standard for the insurer’s exercise of its authority, requiring that the settlement be made in the best interests of the insured. The Court held that by including the language that any settlement must be in the best interests of the insured, the legislature was making it clear that, although an insured cannot veto a settlement, the power to settle is not absolute.
Read the entire opinion by clicking here: Rogers v. Chicago Insurance Company
For more information on defending medical malpractice, nursing home and general liability matters in Florida contact Howard Citron at Citron & Associates, P.A. – www.citronlegal.com.
Posted by citronlegal 
