In Coe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 981, after a serious automobile accident, counsel for one driver's heirs made a policy limits settlement demand on the insurer for the other driver. (Id. at pp. 985-987.) The insurer refused to respond to the settlement demand, in part because the settlement offer did not specify that its acceptance would absolve the insured driver of liability to the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), leaving her exposed to a further action to recoup any monies the SCIF paid to the injured party or his heirs (id. at p. 994); the accident had occurred while the injured driver was acting within the course and scope of his employment (id. at p. 985). The injured driver's heirs obtained a verdict far in excess of the insurance policy limits, and accepted an assignment of the injured driver's bad faith claim against the insurer. (Id. at p. 988.) The appellate court concluded the insurer could not be liable for bad faith: "Absent the offered and guaranteed written consent of the SCIF in the 'offer' of April 4, 1968, acceptance by the insurer of the 'offer' would have left the insured exposed to a recoupment action by the fund. ... Accordingly, acceptance by the insured of the 'offer,' as made, would have amounted to an abdication of its responsibilities to its own insured. Specifically, it would have breached its 'implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing' not to 'injure' her rights under its policy , and its obligation 'to consider the interests of the assured equally with its own.' Bad-faith refusal to accept a settlement offer cannot occur where 'acceptance' would itself be bad faith." (Id. at p. 994.)