In Frusetta v. Hauben (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 551, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had deposited a check from defendants' insurer stating that it was in full and final settlement of all bodily injury claims. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that one of the insurance adjusters had told her that it was only partial settlement. The defendants' summary judgment motion was granted by the trial court, but reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal cited the plaintiff's statement that, based on the statements of an insurance adjuster, she understood that the check was in partial settlement of her claims. The court noted that the plaintiff was not represented by counsel, nor was she advised that she could retain counsel. (Frusetta, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 555.) Instead, she relied upon the statements of the insurance adjuster. The Court of Appeal found that a triable issue of fact existed as to fraud or overreaching by the insurance company. "If a jury accepted appellant's testimony that a Twentieth Century Insurance Company adjuster stated to her that the check was a partial settlement and the rest would be paid later, then it might be found that Twentieth Century violated its duty to act in good faith." (Id. at p. 558.) The appellate court concluded, "the instant case may not be decided by a summary judgment without a thorough exploration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the release." (Id. at p. 560.)