HOWARD v. AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO. Part-III
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>HOWARD v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b<br /> >HOWARD v.<br /> AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO.</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/11/10<br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FIRST<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> FOUR<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=638<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>JAMES<br /> HOWARD et al.,<br /> <br/> Plaintiffs and Appellants,<br /> <br/>v.<br /> <br/>AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO.<br /> et al.,<br /> <br/> Defendants and Appellants.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> A121569 & A123187<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (San<br /> Francisco County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct. Nos. 307379 & 307383)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE <br /> FROM PART II….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Even if the genuine dispute<br /> standard were applied here, American's refusal to settle cannot be excused as a<br /> reasonable dispute. American's<br /> no-coverage position was founded on an unfair and selective reading of James<br /> Howard's deposition testimony that distorted James's account of specific<br /> episodes of molestation into an admission that no molestation occurred during<br /> the policy period, and the insurer's refusal to settle ignored powerful<br /> indications that a multimillion-dollar judgment was likely. The trial court detailed these matters in its<br /> statement of decision and we will not repeat them here.<br /> <br/> American<br /> also acted in bad faith in refusing to indemnify the Bishop after judgment was<br /> entered in the Howard case. In this<br /> context, an insurer's genuine dispute as to coverage may negate bad faith. (<i >Dalrymple</i><i > v. United<br /> Services Auto. Assn. </i>(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 497, 523.) But â€