Bad Faith Blog

Summary: Federal law provides for the imposition of sanctions against attorneys who unreasonably and vexatiously cause an opponent to incur excess costs and fees. A bad faith finding is required to impose those sanctions. In the Nielsen case, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a lengthy complaint alleging eleven causes of action and that ERISA did not apply to a case which was obviously an ERISA case. Two counts were for insurance bad faith and violations of Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA). After multiple dismissals, Unum filed a motion for summary judgment attacking the alleged insurance bad faith and IFCA violations. Plaintiff’s attorney filed a “non-opposition.” In light of that non-opposition the court granted the partial summary judgment and dismissed all remaining non-ERISA claims.

We at Sandberg Phoenix want our Bad Faith Blog to cover bad faith law in as many jurisdictions as possible. For that reason, we will be posting important and seminal cases from several jurisdictions we have not previously reported on during the last 5 years. You will note some of these cases are decades old, but these older cases established the bad faith law in these jurisdictions. The same law discussed in forthcoming posts is alive and well to this day. We are hopeful our reporting on these cases covers the general bad faith law in those jurisdictions we have not yet covered. Hopefully this effort assists those attorneys and insurance professionals who practice or handle claims in these jurisdictions.

The attorneys at Sandberg Phoenix are sponsors for this year’s DRI Seminar on Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability in Chicago on June 17-19. One of our partners, Tony Martin, will also be speaking at the Seminar. The title of his presentation is “Inter-Company Bad Faith Claims: When Another Carrier Launches.”