Consent Judgments, Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith: How a $25,000 Policy Becomes a $20 Million Verdict

Daniel Eli, Of Counsel | PARRIS Law Firm

Daniel Eli is Of Counsel at PARRIS Law Firm, where his practice centers on insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. Across 25 years, he has represented individuals, businesses, and corporate policyholders — along with consumers and bankruptcy trustees — in complex actions against insurers, including matters arising under California Code of Civil Procedure § 999, drawing on additional experience in bankruptcy and malpractice to meet the demands of complex litigation.

• Education & Credentials

Dan earned his law degree from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, and was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1997. He is also admitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Courts for the District of Arizona and the Central, Northern, and Eastern Districts of California.

• Recognition & Leadership

Dan has been named to the Southern California Super Lawyers list every year since 2011.

• Professional Involvement

Dan lectures nationwide at continuing legal education seminars on insurance coverage and bad faith matters.

• Experience

Since joining PARRIS in 2014, Dan has recovered more than $460 million in bad faith damages for his clients, including more than two dozen seven- and eight-figure settlements in state and federal courts. In 2024, the California Supreme Court declined review in Equihua v. Chausse et al., leaving in place a default judgment exceeding $50 million grounded substantially in his post-trial work for a catastrophically injured crash victim. His bad faith results also include a $27.5 million settlement recovered on behalf of a bankruptcy trustee in a lawsuit against an insurer. In 2018, he helped a client who became quadriplegic after a T-bone collision fully recover a $41 million verdict, and his further results include a $41.6 million verdict for a back-seat passenger struck by a distracted driver, a $23 million rollover settlement, a $15 million settlement for three clients injured in a head-on crash, and a $6 million multi-party settlement. Dan is fluent in Hebrew and speaks conversational Spanish.

Jason P. Fowler, Partner | PARRIS Law Firm

Jason P. Fowler is a Partner at PARRIS Law Firm. Over a 20-year career, he has earned a reputation for taking on complex, high-stakes cases against insurers, major corporations, and government entities on behalf of injured individuals, and his knowledge of the research and development of medical devices and pharmaceutical products supports his work in complex product liability matters.

• Education & Credentials

Jason earned his law degree from Pepperdine Law School, and was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2005. Jason is also admitted to the U.S. District Courts for the Central, Northern, and Eastern Districts of California, and the Court of Federal Claims.

• Recognition & Leadership

Jason has been named to the Southern California Super Lawyers, and several of his cases have been featured in the news. Recently, Jason has been profiled by the Los Angeles Times as a Consumer Attorney Visionary, and his $4.8 million verdict was recognized by VerdictSearch as California’s No. 1 T-bone collision verdict for 2024.

• Professional Involvement

In September 2026, Jason was inducted into the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA)—a national, invitation-only organization of experienced trial lawyers and judges.

• Experience

Jason’s trial results include a $32.5 million verdict for a client who suffered severe injuries in a multivehicle crash, a $19.5 million verdict for a bicyclist struck by a vehicle in Cathedral City, an $8.1 million verdict for a client who sustained a traumatic brain injury after being sideswiped in Rosamond, an $8 million non-economic wrongful death verdict, a $6.9 million verdict for a client struck head-on by a driver who veered into oncoming traffic, and a $4.8 million verdict for a client T-boned in Lancaster by a driver who failed to stop at a red light.

SESSION 1 – Can an Insurer Ever Be Bound by A Consent Judgment? | 2:30pm – 3:00pm

This opening session examines the impact of a consent judgment against an insured on third-party liability coverage, using the facts of a real California case as the running fact pattern: an insurer issues a 15/30 liability insurance policy, the insured causes a fatal collision, and the decedent’s heirs offer to settle for policy limits, which is rejected. Before the ensuing lawsuit goes to trial, the heirs offer to settle by entering into a $6 million stipulated judgment, a covenant not to execute against the insured personally, and an assignment of the insured’s “bad faith” rights against the insurer and the insurer refuses to consent. The session then takes up the default rule: no, absent participation or an assumption of the risk. In California, a liability insurer that defends its insured and does not otherwise commit to be bound is not automatically bound by a settlement it did not participate in (Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 718), while a liability insurer that refuses to defend its insured is bound to a consent judgment entered without its consent, so long as the judgment is not collusive.

SESSION 2 – Under What Circumstances Is a Consent Judgment Binding? | 3:00pm – 3:30pm

In other jurisdictions, a consent judgment entered without the insurer’s consent can be binding on the insurer — but only under defined circumstances. This session works through the three recurring prerequisites in most jurisdictions: coverage exists (or is later established) for the claim reduced to judgment; the stipulated amount is reasonable under the circumstances — not simply the number the parties agreed to; and there is no fraud or collusion between the insured and the claimant in reaching the stipulated amount.

BREAK | 3:30pm – 3:40pm

SESSION 3 – Can a Defending Insurer be Bound to a Stipulated Judgment It Did Not Consent To? | 3:40pm – 4:10pm

In California, the answer is no: a liability insurer that defends its insured and does not otherwise commit to be bound is not automatically bound by a settlement it did not participate in, under Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 718, 730, where the court held that “A defending insurer cannot be bound by a settlement made without its participation and without any actual commitment on its insured’s part to pay the judgment…”. The session then surveys how other jurisdictions answer the question: Arizona in Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero (2005) 210 Ariz. 5; Washington in Bird v. Best Plumbing Group, LLC (2012) 175 Wash.2d 756; Missouri in Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) 262 S.W.3d 655; Alaska in Great Divide Ins. Co. v. Carpenter ex rel. Reed (Alaska 2003) 79 P.3d 599; Iowa in Kelly v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. (Iowa 2000) 620 N.W.2d 637; Kansas in Glenn v. Fleming (1990) 247 Kan. 296; and Nevada in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller (2009) 125 Nev. 300.

SESSION 4 – Can the Insurer Be Liable for An Excess Judgment for Refusing to Consent to Judgment? | 4:10pm – 4:40pm

The closing session returns to the running fact pattern’s final act: after the insurer refuses to consent, the lawsuit goes to trial, a judgment in excess of $12 million is entered, and the insured, personally liable for the excess judgment, can no longer obtain a covenant not to execute from the heirs. In California, the issue is being litigated; federal courts have touched, but not decided, the issue, Spradlin v. GEICO contains good analysis but does not reach it, and Dorroh v. Deerbrook says no, but with no analysis. In Nevada, the answer appears to be no. In other jurisdictions, it depends.