Policyholders need insurance laws which protect them if their insurance company delays, denies or wrongfully adjusts their claim. Attorneys have long recognized that insurance law is a specialized niche area of the law with strange nuances. Attorneys not dedicated to this field of law may fail to appreciate or may even miss small but important … Continue Reading
In Keodalah v. Allstate Insurance Company,1 a Washington appellate court held insurance adjusters may be liable for bad faith and violating Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.… Continue Reading
Property insurance is purchased to help protect an insured with the consequences of a natural disaster or serious storm. Far too often we hear from confused policyholders when their insurance carrier attempts to delay payment of a valid covered claim or unreasonably delays the payment of covered benefits. Fortunately, Wyoming provides several legal avenues to … Continue Reading
Merlin Law Group is closely monitoring a case pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court to see how it answers the question: “Does South Carolina law support application of the ‘at issue’ exception to the attorney-client privilege such that a party may waive the privilege by denying liability in its answer?”… Continue Reading
Having undertaken to write about “all things Menchaca,” this month is a review of five cases post-Menchaca which contradict one another in deciding whether the independent injury rule is dead or alive. Looking at the first set of cases post-Menchaca, it appears that the answer to that question is a long way off.… Continue Reading
Recently, the New Jersey Senate passed S-2144, entitled the New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act. While the bill still must go through the Assembly and be signed by the Governor, this is much welcomed news by insureds and their representatives. Since 1993, insureds have had basically no right to bad faith claims against their insurers … Continue Reading
In April 2008, Minnesota’s Legislature passed a bill enacting Minnesota Statues Section 604.18, often referred to as Minnesota’s “Good Faith Law,” which creates a cause of action for first-party bad faith. Under section 604.18, an insured can seek damages from his or her own insurer if the insurer does not act in good faith when … Continue Reading
The Colorado Supreme Court issued two opinions favorable to Colorado policyholders earlier this week: American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Barriga; and Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company. Both cases address the unreasonable delay or denial of insurance benefits statute in Colorado. This post addresses the Barriga opinion, and the Rooftop Restoration, … Continue Reading
Last month, a New York Supreme Court affirmed that insurance companies are subject to that state’s consumer protection law, General Business Law § 349. In 37 West 24th Street, LLC v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc., the trial court denied Seneca Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim under that statute.1… Continue Reading
On Friday, April 13, 2018, by avoiding black cats, ladders, and breaking mirrors, seven members of the Texas Supreme Court1 managed to issue a new, sixty-six page opinion in USAA Texas Lloyds Company v. Menchaca (“Menchaca II”).2 Withdrawing its April 7, 2017, opinion3 —”Menchaca I”—the court unanimously reaffirmed the five legal principles and rules announced … Continue Reading
Last month, a Washington State Court of Appeals ruled that individual insurance adjusters may be personally liable for violations of Washington’s bad faith statute, RCW 48.01.030. The court also ruled that adjusters may be personally liable for violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.020.1… Continue Reading
Bad faith and consequential damages has long been a thorn in the New York plaintiff attorney’s side as they are virtually impossible to recover in most breach of contract actions. Recently, one plaintiff was able to recover attorney’s fees and costs by meeting the stringent standard set forth by New York case law.… Continue Reading
It has been over 30 years since Florida lawmakers enacted section 624.155, which was designed to provide a civil remedy when an insurer fails to settle their policyholder’s claim in good faith or commits any one of the unfair claims handling practices identified in section 626.9541(1)(i). Yet, to this day, questions still arise on one … Continue Reading
I’ve previously discussed Georgia’s bad faith demand requirements in Georgia Unfair Claims Handling. A recent Georgia appellate court opinion1 highlights how strictly OCGA § 33-4-6 is construed by the courts.… Continue Reading
With less than sixty days until the one-year anniversary of the most expensive hailstorm in Colorado history which hammered west metro Denver on May 8, 2017, many individuals, business owners, and community associations members continue the difficult task of negotiating with insurance companies in an effort to return property to pre-storm conditions.… Continue Reading
On April 7, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court in USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca,1 answered several issues that had continually swirled around litigation arising out of Hurricane Ike policy disputes. Unresolved issues included among others: Whether an insured is required to obtain a breach of contract finding as a prerequisite to a recovery for … Continue Reading
Join Robert Trautmann and myself, on February 16, 2018, at 2:00 pm for a free one-hour webinar to discuss the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s recent decision in Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company,1 which upheld the current bad faith standards and specifically noted that an insured need not prove malicious intent to prevail on a … Continue Reading
Unlike many other jurisdictions, under Kansas law, an aggrieved insured cannot file a lawsuit against its insurer for “bad faith” as it is not a recognized tort in first-party claims.1 Note that Kansas still recognizes “bad faith” in the third-party context.2… Continue Reading
The 90-day period to resolve claims made for damages caused by Hurricane Maria may expire soon. To protect insureds from the bad faith and delay of the insurer, Puerto Rico’s Insurance Code provides under Art. 27.162, that insurance companies should be diligent in the processing of claims within the 90-day period for claims to be … Continue Reading
You filed a claim with your insurance company after suffering a loss and it is refusing to pay what is owed under your insurance policy – what now? One of your options is to file a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation, or CRN, with the Department of Financial Services. The CRN serves as notice … Continue Reading
Colorado’s statutory bad faith cause of action can be brought in addition to a claim against the insurer to recover an owed contractual benefit. More importantly, as Jonathan Bukowski discussed in a previous blog post, a cause of action under Colorado’s bad faith statute is not limited to a wronged policyholder, but can be made … Continue Reading
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria, the two-catastrophic category five hurricanes that struck the U.S.V.I. in the space of twelve days, many residents are still in survival mode as they deal with the lingering psychological and physical damage. As the resilient Virgin Islanders continue to rebuild, the next ordeal for those affected will … Continue Reading
In a past blog, I explored how the interpretation of California Civil Instruction (CACI) 2334 is impacting the law. This week, we look at the CACI instruction to analyze how an insurer’s “unreasonable” behavior is deciphered to potentially give rise to a bad faith verdict in California.… Continue Reading
With its 2008 enactment of Colorado Revised Statute § 10-3-1115 and § 10-3-1116, Colorado has created one of the country’s strongest statutory bad faith causes of action. What makes Colorado’s bad faith statute even more exceptional is that it allows a repair vendor, such as a roofer or restoration contractor, to assert a claim for … Continue Reading
