parties to make honest but perhaps mistaken judgments about the risks they face. See generally Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp., 261 Kan. 806, 934 P.2d 65, 87 (1997) (factors in evaluating reasonableness of settlement by abandoned insured include the releasing person’s damages; the merits of the releasing person’s liability theory; the merits of the released person’s defense theory; the released person’s relative faults; the risks and expenses of continued litigation; the released person’s ability to pay; any evidence of bad faith, collusion, or fraud; the extent of the releasing person’s investigation and preparation of the case; and the interests of the parties not being released); S.G. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 460 N.W.2d 639, 644-45 (Minn. App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Indiana courts would not treat a challenge to
holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law holding that an eightmonth delay without excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law holding that it may be decided as a matter of law holding settlement agreement was reasonable as a matter of law where insureds potential liability far exceeded settlement amount and no other evidence indicated it was unreasonable holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established