any claim or ‘suit’ at ... [its] discretion” allowed the insurer to settle the without obtaining the insured’s consent). However, it is well settled New York law that an insurer granted such “exclusive control” over the settlement and defense of claims is subject to an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in certain contexts. Pavia v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins., 82 N.Y.2d 445, 605 N.Y.S.2d 208, 626 N.E.2d 24, 26 (1993). This implied duty of good faith and fair dealing has been applied in situations where an insurer has been presented with a settlement offer that is within the policy limits. See id. at 27; Pinto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 221 F.3d 394, 398-99 (2d Cir.2000); see also Smith v. General Accident Ins. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 648, 674 N.Y.S.2d 267, 270, 697 N.E.2d 168 (1998) (<HOLDING>); New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87
holding that an insurer acted in bad faith by failing to keep the insured informed of settlement negotiations holding that when the insured brings an action for a declaration of coverage and prevails absent a bad faith denial of coverage by the insurer attorneys fees incurred by the insured in the prosecution of that action are not incurred at the request of the insurer holding that if the town acted in bad faith in negotiations and litigation which prevented construction then the plaintiffs on remand cannot be deemed to have lost any rights to vest that they would have been able to exercise in the absence of bad faith holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith holding that insured cannot bring an action against its insurer for bad faith failure to settle a claim in the absence of an excess verdict