Can an insured torfeasor assign their rights to an injured party in a bad faith action?

The assignment of a bad faith cause of action in all of its theories is valid. Aaron v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 So.2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Often times, obtaining an assignment of the bad faith cause of action can be the best route for the injured plaintiff and provide some respite for the tortfeasor. For instance, the injured plaintiff could agree to withhold further action against the tortfeasor for any excess judgment until a proceeding against the insurer. Usually this will require an immediate payment of the policy limits along with taxable costs and an assignment of the bad-faith action. One advantage of this kind of agreement is that the plaintiff can collect an immediate payment and get some relief from an injury that may have rendered them unable to earn a living. Waiting until after the trial will potentially increase the chances of winning a bad-faith action against the insurer because the insurer will likely appeal an offer that could have protected the insured and would delay execution. Campbell v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 306 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1975). The insurer is also held to a higher standard of good faith when confronted with post verdict offers. There are insurance companies that will fail to accurately advise their insured about the repercussions of post trial motions or appeals and this could also further the chances of recovering under a bad-faith claim. The other side of accepting an assignment is that the insured may not be able to satisfy the excess judgment based on their assets. Your Palm Beach County accident attorney should examine the assets of the insured to ensure that an excess judgment can be collected without significant expenses. Also many plaintiff’s lawyers take the defendant’s deposition to gain some information about their assets and possibly some information about the communications between the insured and the insurance company concerning the settling the case.