Skip to Content

Bad Faith Blog

We cover current issues, highlights and best practices exclusively on claims of bad faith and extra contractual damages.

Bad Faith Blog
October 17, 2017

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Pennsylvania Law Does Not Require a Policyholder to Prove Insurer’s Self-Interest or Ill Will to Succeed on a Bad Faith Claim

Insured LeAnn Rancosky, who was employed as a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service, purchased a “cancer insurance” policy from Washington National Insurance Company. Rancosky’s employer automatically deducted her bi-weekly premium payments from her paycheck. The policy contained a “waiver-of-premium” provision, which excused premium payments in the event Rancosky became disabled due to cancer. The waiver provision set forth certain requirements be met, including being disabled due to cancer for a period greater than 90 consecutive days beginning on or after the date of diagnosis. Rancosky was diagnosed with cancer, became disabled, and made claims under the policy. Her claims were later denied due to an erroneous statement of disability provided by her physician, which the carrier did not follow up on despite having adequate information in its possession calling into question the physician’s statement. She sued the carrier for breach of contract and bad faith under the Pennsylvania statute. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, clarifying Pennsylvania law, held that a policyholder is not required to prove the insurance carrier’s subjective ill will or self-interest to succeed on a statutory bad faith claim under Pennsylvania law.

Bad Faith Blog
July 23, 2017

Ninth Circuit Finds California’s Genuine Dispute Doctrine Does Not Bar Bad Faith Judgment Against Excess

LMA North America, Inc. (LMA) sued National Union for breach of contract and bad faith after defendant refused to either contribute $3.75 million towards the settlement of counter-claims asserted by LMA’S competitor, Ambu, or take over the defense of the trade disparagement and false advertising claims. After settling the underlying claims above the $1M primary coverage, LMA asked National Union to pay the balance of the settlement or assume the defense. After the settlement was finalized, National Union agreed to assume the defense. LMA claimed in the coverage and bad faith case that National Union acted in bad faith. The district court denied National Union’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for LMA on the jury’s verdict in favor of LMA on the breach of contract and bad faith claims while rejecting the punitive damages claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the contract and bad faith judgments.

Bad Faith Blog
March 19, 2017

As Luck Would Have It: Evidence Insured Would Reject a Settlement Offer Excused Insurer from Notifying Insured of Such Offer

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? If a claimant offers a settlement, and the insured would have rejected it had she known of the offer, is it bad faith? The Ninth Circuit said no. Rejecting a settlement without contacting the insured is never wise, but if evidence shows the insured would have rejected such an offer, a valid bad faith claim may not exist for lack of injury.

Bad Faith Blog
February 5, 2017

No Excess Judgment, No Problem: Excess Insurer Has Claim Against Primary Insurer

Summary: An employer’s excess insurer brought an action for bad faith against the primary insurer, which had defended the employer against a worker’s personal injury action that resulted in a settlement in excess of the primary insurer’s limits. The excess insurer alleged the primary insurer should have settled the case within the primary carrier’s policy’s limits. The trial court dismissed the claim finding it was not actionable when there was no excess judgment entered against the insured. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Bad Faith Blog
January 29, 2017

Release Inflexibility Leads to Multi-Million Dollar Stipulated Judgment and Bad Faith Liability

Summary: Mercury Casualty provided auto liability insurance coverage with limits of $15,000/$30,000 to insured driver McDaniel who, while intoxicated, ran into and seriously injured two pedestrians. Mercury investigated, offered its policy limits, and allowed the claimants’ attorney to investigate McDaniel’s assets, but balked at language plaintiffs’ attorney added to the release to account for “court-ordered restitution.” After a stipulated judgment of $3 million against McDaniel, the pedestrians sued for breach of contract and common law bad faith, which resulted in a $3 million judgment plus interest and costs in their favor. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.