Whether injured third parties can directly sue an insurer for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, even without obtaining a prior judgment against the insured tortfeasor

Questions Presented , The California Legislature as evidenced in the Insurance Code 11580(b)(2) and the binding caselaw precedent (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 46 Cal. 3d 287) of the Supreme Court of California have instituted a broad and impenetrable barrier for injured third parties which has blocked their proceeding directly in litigation against a tortfeasor’s insurer prior to achieving a judgment against the tortfeasor. That barrier is maintained even in those circumstances _ where there is the presence of indisputable evidence of ‘ definitive and foreseeable injury caused to that third party by the direct actions of the insurer which has flagrantly breached its duty to the insured under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing due to that insurer's failure to settle the litigation under a policy limit offer extended by the injured third party. Under California law the only exception to this imposing moat of protection provided to insurers is the assignment by the insured to the injured third party of their ‘cause of action for breach of the duty to settle” lll (Coleman v. Gulf Ins. Group, 41 Cal. _d 782,795 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1986). 1. In the unique circumstances of this case at issue and in similar cases the long existing case law precedents of the Supreme Court of California (Comunale v. Traders and General Ins. Co., 50 Cal. 2d 654, Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., 66 Cal.2d 425, ; Johanson v. California State Auto. Assn. Inter-ins. Bureau, 15 Cal. 3d 9) the Insurer CSAA et al. due to the breach of their duty to settle must assume full : liability and risk in the litigation due to the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing : owed to the insured. Under such specific conditions where the insured has no further financial risk whatsoever in the litigation, isn’t it true that any subsequent and foreseeable injury or harm which occurs to the injured third party as a result of the insurer’s actions should represent an actionable ; , injury against that insurer under the “cases” and “controversies” provisions at Article ITI, section 2 of the U. S. Constitution and fully supportive of the right to sue under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth iv Amendments as well as under the long standing precedents of the common law to seek redress for the injuries sustained? 2. The well-established early precedents of this U. S. Supreme Court [Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, Hn. 4 (1886) and Gulf, C. & SF. R. Co: v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)] fully recognized that “corporations are persons . within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment” . (Id., p.154) with the same rights and privileges guaranteed to all persons under the U. S. Constitution. Doesn’t the evidence contained within the California Insurance Code'‘and case law precedents of the California courts reviewed above which effectively demonstrates complete protection to insurers under all conditions against third party litigants even despite the evidence of direct and indisputable harm to the third party by the insurer’s acts be determined to represent flagrant, impermissible evidence of unconstitutional, unequal . and elevated protections provided to those insurers and denied to the third party litigants? v 3. The ancient precedent of this U. S. Supreme Court [Second National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, 124 (1878)] fully recognized that multiple exceptions ; to the presence of privity of contract existed which created the third party right to proceed with suit for non-performance which occurs most commonly | where “under a contract between two persons, assets have come to the promisor’s hands or under his control, which in equity belong to a third party’ (Id., ’ p. 196-197). Isn’t it true that under those similar circumstances where the insurer which represents . the promisor or assumpsit refuses payment to the injured third party that a suit for non-performance ; against the insurer under the “cases and