The California Court of Appeal recently disposed of a novel attack on bad faith law launched by Zurich American Insurance Company. In Miller Marital Deduction Trust, et al. v. Zurich American Insurance Company, 2019 DJDAR (October 23, 2019), Zurich was called upon to defend a cross complaint arising in connection with long-tail pollution claims. Despite an extensive reservation of rights and a conflict of interest, Zurich refused to pay for independent counsel (Cumis counsel, in California parlance) and instead appointed panel counsel to defend. While the underlying environmental case was pending in federal court, the Millers filed a state court action against Zurich asserting that the insurer’s appointment of counsel answerable to the insurance company, in violation of the Millers’ right to independent counsel, constituted breach of contract and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Since 2008, Minnesota has had a bad-faith statute that penalizes an insurance company for its unreasonable denial of a first-party insurance claim. But it was only earlier this month that a Minnesota appellate court interpreted the statute to require insurance companies to conduct a reasonable investigation and fairly evaluate its results to establish a reasonable basis for denying the claim. In so doing, the court rejected the interpretation offered by the insurance company: that the policyholder must prove there are no facts or evidence upon which the insurance company could rely to deny coverage. That interpretation would have allowed insurers to rely on post hoc justifications for denying coverage. The court’s rejection of that argument is an important development in bad-faith law that will likely affect both suits brought in Minnesota and those in other jurisdictions where courts might look to this decision for guidance in connection with many types of insurance claims. Continue reading →
Imagine your organization has suffered significant property damage and interruption to your business as a result. The cause could be anything—a natural disaster, severe mechanical breakdown or a cyberattack. You notify your property insurance carrier and adjust the claim, submitting calculations of your losses based on the policy’s coverages and other terms. But in response, your carrier only agrees to pay a fraction of the losses, claiming that otherwise your organization would be better off than before the damage—“unjustly enriched”—and that insurance is not meant for gain, but only to put the insured in the position it would have been without the damage.
A federal court in Michigan just breathed new life into a long-running legal saga—while at the same time issuing a warning shot across the bows of insurers—by declining to dismiss an insured’s bad faith cause of action alleging its insurer wrongly decided to pay one claim before another, to the insured’s detriment.
The Flint, Mich., water crisis returned to the news recently as criminal charges were brought against additional government employees resulting from the crisis. Meanwhile, a federal court in Pennsylvania recently issued a ruling in an insurance case that, like Flint, related to alleged contamination in drinking water stemming from corroded pipes. The decision rejects two insurers’ attempts to avoid coverage and serves as a good reminder of some fundamental insurance law principles—the duty to defend is broad, ambiguous policy language usually is construed against the insurer, and policies should be interpreted in favor of their purpose to provide coverage. It is also a reminder that the pollution exclusion is not nearly as all-encompassing as insurers like to think it is.
The first thing your insurance company must do after receiving notice of a loss is investigate your claim and make a coverage determination. The insurer will evaluate the strength of your claim, whether to pay it and what amount to pay. Even if the insurer thinks your claim is potentially covered, it may take the position that your claim is not covered or slow down its claim adjustment process to delay a payout in an effort to leverage a settlement for less than full value. If you sue to challenge your insurer’s coverage denial, a critical step to protect your rights and get the full coverage owed is to gain discovery of the insurer’s internal claims documents.
New York is a tricky forum for policyholders pursuing insurance coverage claims. In particular, New York jurisprudence has long failed to recognize and address causes of action for bad faith. Historically, insureds seeking to impose extracontractual liability have been required to meet the high bar of showing “egregious tortious conduct” and “a pattern of similar conduct directed at the public generally.” Contract-based claims invoking good faith and fair dealing often fared no better, with courts routinely dismissing insureds’ bad faith claims because they viewed them as “duplicative” of the policyholders’ underlying claims for breach of the insurance contract.
In 2008, a glimmer of hope emerged from New York’s highest court. In Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysville Insurance Co., the court recognized a policyholder’s right to recover consequential damages in excess of policy limits where (1) the damages were the direct result of improper claims handling, and (2) the damages were foreseeable by the parties at the time of contracting. Although this decision did not create a bad faith cause of action, it did provide policyholders with a potential avenue to recoup consequential damages where the insurer violated its implicit contract-based covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Florida is a hotbed for insurance claims, from run-of-the mill auto accidents to pervasive construction defects to post-hurricane business interruptions, and everything in between. Insurance companies are likely to deny many of those claims—whether or not that denial is proper—hoping that their policyholders will be unwilling to spend the time and money required to demonstrate coverage. But with its new decision in Johnson v. Omega Insurance Company, the Florida Supreme Court reminds policyholders that they have a powerful tool against improper denials of coverage—the awarding of attorney’s fees. Continue reading →