In Elephant Insurance Co., LLC v. Kenyon, the Supreme Court of Texas reiterated the framework of an insurer’s common-law duties to insureds under Texas law.[1] In applying that framework to the facts of the case, the Court rejected an attempt to expand an insurer’s obligations under existing common-law tort principles. The Court also refused to recognize new common-law duties, requiring insurers to protect or warn policyholders following car accidents. About The Author
Just a few short years ago, there was a bright line rule under Texas law concerning appraisal awards. If an insurer timely paid an appraisal award, that payment extinguished all of the insurer’s contractual and extracontractual liability to the insured. See, e.g., Garcia v. State Farm Lloyds, 514 S.W.3d 257, 264-273 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied); Anderson v. Am Risk Ins. Co., 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6538, *10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.); Perry v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10108, *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018, no pet.); Gonzales v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26203, *3 (S.D. Tex. 2019). The Fifth Circuit had previously agreed, making an Erie guess…
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). About The Author
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. About The Authors
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 insured. 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…
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…
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…
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. About The Authors
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…
In Part I of this series, we discussed institutional bad faith and best practices for insurers to minimize the risk of these costly and intrusive lawsuits. In Part II, we will focus on cutting discovery off at the pleadings—by narrowing the plaintiff’s claim, you limit the scope of relevance in discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case….” Plaintiffs often allege institutional bad faith by providing a small amount of information pertaining to the company at large, and then making significant inferences and conclusions and offering those inferences as factual allegations. A skilled attorney can…
