axiomatic that a Coblentz agreement establishes the insured’s liability. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 169 So.3d at 181— 82 (“The notion is that the settlement establishes the insured’s liability, but not the insurer’s obligation of coverage.”). The subsequent entry of a consent judgment is conclusive against the insurer as to all matters determined in the judgment. Gallagher, 918 So.2d at 348. Thus, in the proceedings to enforce the consent judgment, the insurer is not permitted to assert any defense that it could have raised in the underlying lawsuit between the assignee and the insured. Indep. Fire Ins. Co., 633 So.2d at 1114 (“[The insurer] was not permitted to assert all of the defenses which could have been asserted in the underlying cause of' action ....”); Gallagher, 918 So.2d at 348 (<HOLDING>). The circuit court’s order granting summary
holding that an insureds compliance with a condition precedent is not tested by the presence or absence of prejudice to the insurer but only by whether the condition has been fulfilled by the insured under all the circumstances holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party holding that the insureds liability has been established by the settlement and the insurer may not later relitigate the issue holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against liability insurer for bad faith in negotiating settlement holding that where there has been no settlement or judgment of liability regarding the underlying claim any imposition of liability is not so immediate as to warrant declaratory relief on the issue of indemnification