In United Services Automobile Assn. v. Alaska Ins. Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 638, an excess insurer sued a primary insurer for equitable indemnity and subrogation after the primary insurer entered into a settlement agreement on its insured's behalf to settle a personal injury action against the insured. The appellate court held that the excess insurer could not maintain an equitable subrogation claim against the primary insurer because the excess insurer could not show that its insured had an existing, assignable bad faith claim against the primary insurer, since the primary insurer had accepted defense of the personal injury action and settled the action within its policy limits with its insured's consent. (United Services, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 646.) The appellate court concluded that "when an insured agrees to an insurer's settlement of a third party claim, the insured waives any right to maintain a bad faith action against the insurer based on the settlement, unless the insured's agreement to the settlement was procured by coercion, duress, fraud or some other improper means." (United Services, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 646.) The appellate court explained that "a finding of implied waiver under these circumstances accords with the principle that ' "California courts will find waiver when a ... party's acts are so inconsistent with an intent to enforce the right as to induce a reasonable belief that such right has been relinquished." ' (Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 33-34.)" (United Services, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 646.)