Bad Faith Blog

Summary: Insured’s judgment creditors brought action against liability insurer to recover for unfair insurance settlement practices in connection with claim for damage to plants from salt water drawn from well drilled by insured. The trial court, after a six-day bench trial, entered judgment in favor of creditors and awarded attorney fees and expenses. Parties filed cross appeals and Appeals Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Summary: Dana Johno brought a suit against Leon Duplessis & Sons, Inc. (“Duplessis”) alleging it demolished his home without consent following Hurricane Katrina. Johno also named as parties to the suit Duplessis’s two subcontractors (Hard Rock Construction and Pro Tree Services), its insurer (Scottsdale Insurance Company) and the local parish government which hired Duplessis.

Summary: Campbell caused a serious automobile accident and was found liable for a judgment in excess of his insurance policy’s limits. Despite the serious risk of an excessive judgment and multiple offers to settle within policy limits, State Farm, Campbell’s insurer, refused to settle the claim. Campbell filed suit against State Farm for bad faith failure to settle, but the trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for trial.

The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment against a liability insurer for extra-contractual damages in a declaratory judgment action originally filed by the insurer to determine coverage and defense obligations. The insurer was not allowed to challenge the reasonableness of its insured’s court-approved settlement and the judgment entered against the insurer for extra-contractual damages was upheld despite there being no bad faith claim asserted in the declaratory judgment action filed by the insurer.

Summary: After the insurer denied a settlement demand for the $2 million policy limits, the insured, a plumbing contractor, and the land owner plaintiff (“claimant”) reached a settlement agreement for approximately $3.75 million. The trial court judge determined that the settlement was reasonable. The insurer appealed arguing it had a right to a jury trial on the issues of reasonableness and that the reasonableness finding was supported by substantial evidence. The appeals court affirmed.