Using general contract interpretation principles, the Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of an insurer and found a duty to defend Landry’s in a data breach lawsuit. Landry’s Inc. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, No. 19-20430 (July 21, 2021). Landry’s contracted with Paymentech to process credit card payments at its restaurants, hotels, and casinos. Paymentech discovered a data breach across fourteen Landry’s locations resulting in $20 million of fraudulent credit card payments. The data breach involved an unauthorized program installed on Landry’s payment-processing devices. The program searched data from credit cards’ magnetic strips, including the cardholder’s name, card number, expiration date, and internal verification code, as the information was being routed through the payment-processing systems. Paymentech sued Landry’s for breach of the Paymentech-Landry’s agreement, under which Landry’s was required to comply with certain security guidelines and indemnify Paymentech for damages resulting from Landry’s failure to comply.
The Iowa Supreme Court recently
reversed the appellate court’s denial of an insurer’s motion for a directed
verdict, finding that United Fire did not breach the insurance policy and did
not commit bad faith during a property appraisal. Luigi’s, Inc. v. United Fire and Cas. Co., No. 19-1669, — N.W.2d
—-, 2021 WL 1932711 (Iowa May 14, 2021).
An insurer can no longer claim its lack of notice of a lawsuit against its insured excuses it for failing to settle the suit after the Georgia Supreme Court’s recent decision in GEICO Indemnity Co. v. Whiteside, Case No. S21Q0227 (Ga. April 19, 2021). In Whiteside, the Georgia Supreme Court held that an insurer’s bad faith failure to settle a claim may result in liability for judgments in excess of the insured’s policy, even in cases where the insured also breaches its contractual duty to notify the insurer of a suit brought against it.
Waiver, estoppel and forfeiture are
doctrines on which insureds often rely to try to create coverage outside the terms of the insurance
policy. Insureds will often assert that they are entitled to such
extra-contractual coverage based entirely
on how the insurer handled the claim. But
under California law, these doctrines often do not apply, and an insurer can
avoid a potential waiver, estoppel or forfeiture by communicating with the
Although the terms are often used
interchangeably, the doctrines are different. Estoppel refers to conduct by the
insurer that reasonably causes an insured to rely to his detriment. Waiver is
an express or implicit intentional relinquishment of a known right demonstrated.
And forfeiture is the assessment of a penalty against the insurer for either
misconduct or failure to perform an obligation under the contract.”
On March 8, 2021
the California Court of Appeal, reversing a $10 million verdict against
Farmers, found that a jury must specifically find unreasonable acts by an insurer
to support a “failure to settle” bad faith finding. Pinto v. Farmers Ins. Exch., No. B295742,
__ Cal. App. 5th __, 2021 WL 857776 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2021). The court also clarified that it has never
held that a failure to accept a reasonable settlement is per se unreasonable under California law.
The case involved a
single-vehicle rollover accident, which left the claimant, a passenger in Farmers’
insured vehicle, a quadriplegic. Farmers issued an auto insurance policy with a
$50,000 each person and $100,000 each occurrence limit to the owner of the
insured vehicle, a pickup truck. The owner
allegedly allowed her friend to drive the pickup-truck on the day of the
Illinois does not recognize bad
faith as an independent tort. In the first-party context, bad faith is a purely
statutory construct which hinges upon whether an insurer’s conduct was
“vexatious and unreasonable.” Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code (215
ILCS 5/155) provides the exclusive remedy
for bad faith conduct by an insurer and also preempts other causes of action
that at their core constitute a breach of good faith and fair dealing.
Section 154.6 of the Illinois
Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/154.6) enumerates 18 improper claim practices.
Although these practices are not dispositive of a Section 155 claim, a court
may properly consider the enumerated actions when determining whether an
insurer’s conduct was vexatious and unreasonable. As
a result, Section 154.6 provides a helpful guide for what not to do when handling a claim, which can be useful in
establishing practices and rules of thumb for proper claims handling. The
Section 154.6 improper practices can be distilled down to three distinct trouble
areas: (1) where an insurer fails to be prompt and responsive; (2) where an
insurer fails to be proactive; and (3) where an insurer fails to adequately
investigate a claim.
In two recent cases, the courts
showed substantial deference to patients’ treating physicians in determining
the reasonableness of medical treatment. This deference appears to reflect a
reluctance of courts to decide what healthcare is appropriate for a patient.
In Peterson v. Western National Mut. Ins. Co., 946 N.W.2d 903 (Minn.
2020), the policyholder was involved in a low-speed automobile accident.
Following the accident, she sought treatment from a chiropractor for body aches
and headaches. She entered into a settlement with the other driver and her
insurer also paid her policy’s no-fault benefits. For two to three years
following the accident, the insured underwent various treatments for her
headaches. Eventually, she tried Botox injections, which she found effective.
The insured’s treating physician reported that the insured would need the
$2,500 per treatment Botox injections for the rest of her life. As a result,
the insured demanded her insurer pay her policy’s full $250,000 underinsured
motorist coverage limit, and then filed suit.
The key issue in insurance bad
faith litigation is whether the claims professional reasonably handled the
claim. Throughout the claims-handling process, the claims professional should
constantly ask him-or-herself whether the investigation is sufficient to
support a coverage determination and how someone might challenge that
determination. By asking and answering those questions, the claims professional
can be confident in his or her coverage determination. And to ensure that the
claims professional’s analysis is not lost, his or her file should contain the evidence
necessary to fully explain any such determination.
In Texas, and as a general rule, only the four corners of the policy and the four corners of the petition against the insured are relevant in deciding whether the duty to defend applies. Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, ___S.W.3d ___, 2020 WL 1313782 at *1 (Tex. 2020). Texas courts and practitioners refer to this general rule as the “eight-corners” rule. After years of implicitly acknowledging an exception to the eight-corners rule may exist, in Loya Insurance Company v. Avalos, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2020 WL 2089752 (Slip.Op. Tex. May 1, 2020), the Texas Supreme Court affirmatively adopted a narrow exception to the rule: “courts may consider extrinsic evidence regarding whether the insured and a third party suing the insured colluded to make false representations of fact in that suit for the purpose of securing a defense and coverage where they otherwise would not exist.” Id. at *1.
Loya Insurance Company issued an automobile liability policy to Karla Flores Guevara. The policy specifically excluded coverage for Guevara’s husband, Rodolfo Flores. While moving Guevara’s car, Flores collided with another car carrying the Hurtados. Guevara, Flores, and the Hurtados agreed to tell both the responding police officer and the insurer that Guevara, rather than Flores, was driving the car. Guevara sought coverage from Loya for the Hurtados’ claim and Loya furnished an attorney to defend Guevara. Early in the discovery process, Guevara claimed to be the driver. However, she disclosed the lie to her insurer-retained defense attorney right before her deposition. 592 S.W.3d 138, 141-42 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018), review granted (Jan. 17, 2020), rev’d, 2020 WL 2089752. The deposition was cancelled and Loya denied a defense and coverage to Guevara. The opinion from the Court of Appeals states that Guevara “testified she did not tell anyone at Loya that Flores was driving until right before her deposition in the underlying suit was to begin.” 592 S.W.3d at 142. After reviewing the briefs filed in the Texas Supreme Court, it is unclear when or how Loya learned of Guevara’s confession. The Hurtados obtained a default judgment against Guevara. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hurtados and awarded approximately $450,000.00 in damages.
In Part I of this series, we explored the differences between institutional and non-institutional bad faith. For claims of institutional bad faith, plaintiffs often attempt to demonstrate a pattern and practice by offering evidence of claims of other policyholders. Unlike claims of institutional bad faith premised on the insurer’s policies and procedures, “other claims” allegations do not require knowledge of the insurer’s motives or internal programs, but instead rely on evidence of repeated behavior to make the threshold showing of bad faith.
When a plaintiff attempts to offer specific factual allegations relating to other policyholders in order to demonstrate a general business practice, the relevant inquiries relate to any actual similarities between the claims and the threshold at which the plaintiff alleges enough “other claims” to constitute a general business practice. “A defendant’s dissimilar acts, independent from the acts upon which liability was premised, may not serve as the basis for punitive damages.” Unique policyholders make unique insurance claims. Factors courts consider in determining whether acts involving other policyholders suggest a general business practice include: (1) the degree of similarity between the alleged unfair practices in other instances and the practice allegedly harming the plaintiff; (2) the degree of similarity between the insurance policy held by the plaintiff and the polices held by other alleged victims of the insurer’s practices; (3) the degree of similarity between the claims made under the plaintiff’s policy and those made by other alleged victims under their respective policies; and (4) the degree to which the insurer is related to other entities engaging in similar practices.
Use the plaintiff’s detailed bad faith allegations to show that the alleged bad faith is unique to the circumstances of the case, and but for the specific circumstances, each successive act or omission would not have happened. Consider the pool of policyholders that the plaintiff is offering as similar. Variables to analyze—in addition to the allegations of bad faith conduct—include the geographic scope, the temporal range, the type of loss or claim, and the personnel involved. In the discovery context, the Supreme Court of Texas considered “the many variables associated with a particular claim, such as when the claim was filed, the condition of the property at the time of filing (including the presence of any preexisting damage), and the type and extent of damage inflicted by the covered event.”
With respect to the number of other claims, some courts require the plaintiff to “produce evidence of far more than three other claims in addition to his own.” While there is no “magic number,” the “appropriate consideration is whether the plaintiff has made facially plausible allegations that, in the circumstances of the particular case, the defendant has engaged in the alleged wrongful acts enough to suggest it has a general business practice of doing so.”
The best practice for limiting general business practices discovery is to stop it before it starts. Scrutinize the pleadings carefully. When the plaintiff attempts to demonstrate a general business practice with allegations regarding other insurance claims, explore the similarities and the dissimilarities of the claims and emphasize the latter. Failure to do so gives the plaintiff an opportunity to go on what might be a costly and intrusive fishing expedition.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 422 (2003).
Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 46 F. Supp. 3d 157, 166 (D. Conn. 2014).
In re National Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. 2014). In National Lloyds, the Supreme Court of Texas vacated a trial court order compelling an insurer to produce documents relating to the insurer’s valuation of other insurance claims. The court held that the insurer’s evaluation of the damage to other homes is not probative of the plaintiff’s undervaluation claims at issue. Id.
See, e.g., Jablonski v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 2:07-cv-00386, 2010 WL 1417063 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2010) (citing Howell-Demarest v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 673 So. 2d 526, 529 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)).
Belz, 46 F. Supp. 3d at 167 (holding three alleged other instance of unfair settlement practices are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss); see also K Kim v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 3:15-cv-879, 2015 WL 6675532, at *5 (D. Conn. Oct. 30, 2015) (“Here, Plaintiffs rely on one instance of wrongful conduct, the denial of their claim at issue in this litigation. They fail to allege any pattern of wrongful conduct, either with respect to their claim or those of others.”).
Cozen O’Connor represents insurance clients in jurisdictions throughout the U.S. against statutory and common law first- and third-party extracontractual claims for actual and consequential damages, penalties, punitive and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and coverage payments. Whether bad faith claims are addenda to a broader coverage matter or are central to the complaint, Cozen O’Connor attorneys know how to efficiently respond to extracontractual causes of action. More
Subscribe For Updates
Thank you for registering. Please check your email to confirm your subscription.