Bad Faith Blog

Summary: Plaintiff sued title insurer upon learning of burdensome recorded easement after purchase of property. Plaintiff sought recovery for breach of contract as well as under the Consumer Protection Act, The Insurance Fair Conduct Act, negligence, and breach of the duty of good faith. Prior to filing suit, Plaintiff sought $125,000 based on diminution in value of the property due to the easement. Title insurer accepted coverage but disagreed as to damage caused by the easement. Title insurer hired expert appraiser who determined diminution in value was $25,000 and title insurer immediately offered to pay that amount. Plaintiff then demanded $100,000 settlement. Title insurer then mailed check to Plaintiff for $25,000, which was rejected and returned by Plaintiff.

Summary: Insured’s property was destroyed by fire. Homeowner’s insurer denied claim based on nonrenewal of policy prior to fire loss. Mortgagee institutes foreclosure action against insured, who filed third-party action against insurer for breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay claim, and indemnity and contribution, claiming attempt to non-renew did not comply with South Carolina law and was invalid. The trial court entered summary judgment for insurer, finding its notice of nonrenewal complied with South Carolina law. Because the nonrenewal was proper, the bad faith refusal to pay claim failed as a matter of law.

Summary: The insured made significant improvements to its building, thereby increasing building’s value. Insurer made initial payments to insured under building, personal property and business income coverages. After substantial negotiations between insurer and insured’s counsel, insured filed breach of contract action against insurer. Insured won at trial, and insurer paid the judgment and interest and obtained a satisfaction of judgment.

Summary: A tanker truck spilled 6,380 gallons of gasoline, which flowed underneath the highway and beneath the property of multiple homeowners. This case involved the available amount of coverage under primary and excess policies that included both commercial general liability and auto liability coverages. The primary carrier quickly exhausted its $1,000,000 Auto limit through clean-up costs, and when suit was filed the primary carrier tendered the defense to the excess carrier. Excess carrier defended until its $4,000,000 “Per-Occurrence” limit was exhausted and then, believing its applicable limits had been exhausted, re-tendered defense back to the primary carrier. A declaratory judgment action ensued over the amount of available primary and excess coverage. The insureds entered into a “covenant not to execute” agreement that resulted in a stipulated judgment in excess of $13,000,000.