1 Basics of Missouri Insurance Law After suffering damages to residential or commercial property, home and business owners may make claims on their policies to recover for their losses. Below is an overview of Missouri insurance law. Circumstances may vary for each individual, and it is best to seek legal representation for help with your specific claim. General Considerations When the language in an insurance policy is ambiguous, the court applies a meaning according to what the insured ordinarily would have understood, as ambiguous provisions are construed against the insurer. 1 If sections of an insurance policy are inherently inconsistent, the sections should be construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured. 2 Recovery Under a Policy While there is no traditional bad faith claim under Missouri law, a primary cause of action the insured may file against the insurer is a vexatious refusal to pay claim. Vexatious means without reasonable or probable cause or excuse. 3 This claim is set forth under Sections and of the Missouri Revised Statutes, which authorize the award of additional damages in actions involving insurance contracts. Section (Additional Damages for Vexatious Refusal to Pay) states: In any action, suit or other proceeding instituted against any insurance company, association or other insurer upon any contract of insurance issued or delivered in this state to a resident of this state, or to a corporation incorporated in or authorized to do business in this state, if the insurer has failed or refused for a period of thirty days after due demand therefor prior to the institution of the action, suit or proceeding, to make payment under and in accordance with the terms and provisions of the contract of insurance, and it shall appear from the evidence that the refusal was vexatious and without reasonable cause, the court or jury may, in addition to the amount due under the provisions of the contract of insurance and interest thereon, allow the plaintiff damages for vexatious refusal to pay and attorney's fees as provided in Section Failure of an insurer to appear and defend any action, suit or other proceeding shall be 1 Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., 827 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Mo. banc 1992). 2 Dibben v. Shelter Ins. Co., 2007 WL (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2008); Todd v. Missouri United School Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156, 163 (Mo. banc 2007). 3 Hay v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 551 S.W.2d 954 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
2 deemed prima facie evidence that its failure to make payment was vexatious without reasonable cause. Section (Vexatious Refusal to Pay Claim, Damages for, Exception) states: [I]f it appears from the evidence that such company has refused to pay such loss without reasonable cause or excuse, the court or jury may, in addition to the amount thereof and interest, allow the plaintiff damages not to exceed twenty percent of the first fifteen hundred dollars of the loss, and ten percent of the amount of the loss in excess of fifteen hundred dollars and a reasonable attorney's fee; and the court shall enter judgment for the aggregate sum found in the verdict. Section sets forth how to determine whether or not there was a vexatious refusal by the insurer without a reasonable cause or excuse, while Section emphasizes the remedies available to the insured. For a claim of vexatious refusal to pay, the insured has to show there is an insurance policy, the insurer refused to pay, and the insurer s refusal was without reasonable cause or excuse. 4 Some instances where the courts have awarded vexatious refusal penalties against an insurer are: 1. Where there was a continued refusal to pay by the insurer even after it became aware it had no meritorious defense; 5 2. Where the insurer did not conduct an adequate investigation and did not state a ground for denial; 6 3. Where the insurer has engaged in disparate treatment of coinsureds; 7 4. Where the insurer s refusal is based upon suspicion and not reasonable inference from established facts; 8 and 5. Where the insurer s refusal to pay was not based on supporting facts at the time, even if an investigation did develop such facts afterwards. 9 Thus, it appears there is an emphasis on the importance of the insurer conducting an adequate investigation into the claim, having supporting facts and substantiation prior to a refusal to pay, stating a ground for denial, and paying once it becomes aware it has no meritorious defense. Courts have also stated that the determination whether an 4 Dhyne v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 188 S.W.3d 454, 457 (Mo. 2006). 5 Ireland v. Manufacturers & Merchants Indem. Co., 298 S.W.2d 529, 534 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957). 6 Allen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 753 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). 7 Russell v. Farmers & Merchants Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 209, 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). 8 Laster v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 693 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1985). 9 Still v. Travelers Indem. Co., 374 S.W.2d 95 (Mo. 1963) (citing Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Bommarito, 42 F.2d 53, 57 (8 th Cir. 1930)).
3 insurer, who has refused to pay a claim, has acted with a vexatious attitude is a question of fact that is properly before the jury. 10 Whether or not refusal is vexatious or reasonable must be determined by the situation as presented to the insurer at the time it was supposed to pay. 11 This discourages an insurer from simply refusing to pay, hoping that an investigation will unearth supporting facts and validate the decision later on. As such, an insurer s refusal to pay based on a suspicion that is unsupported by substantial facts is considered vexatious. 12 An insured may still pursue a claim for vexatious refusal against the insurer even after the insurer pays the policy limits, as interest and attorney's fees may still be at issue. 13 For vexatious penalties to be assessed against an insurer, there may not have to be an express refusal to pay. Other actions, such as continued investigation or ambivalence, may be found to be equivalent to a refusal. 14 The statute of limitations on a vexatious refusal claim, which is a quasi-tort cause of action, is five years. RSMo. Section , provides: All parts of any contract or agreement hereafter made or entered into which either directly or indirectly limit or tend to limit the time in which any suit or action may be instituted, shall be null and void. This statute is applicable to insurance contracts governed by Missouri law. Accordingly, if an insurance contract contains a period of limitations contrary to this statute, it is against public policy and will be unenforced by the court. 15 The insured may also pursue a traditional breach of contract claim, which has a limitations period of ten years. In that instance, the insured may argue that the insurer breached the contract by refusing to pay what the home or business was worth, even though it had contracted to do so. Defenses 10 Oliver v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 866 S.W.2d 865, 871 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1993); Hopkins v. American Eco. Ins. Co., 896 S.W.2d 933, 944 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1995). 11 Russell v. Farms & Merchant s Insur. Co., 834 S.W.2d 209, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1992). 12 Laster v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 693 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). 13 Dhyne v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 188 S.W.3d 454 (Mo. 2006), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Apr. 11, 2006). 14 Desmond v. American Ins. Co., 786 S.W.2d 144, 148 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1989) (considering whether an 18-month delay in paying life insurance proceeds was vexatious); Shafer v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, 778 S.W.2d 395 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1989) (ruling that a failure to reply for 13 months was sufficient to find for vexatious penalties). 15 Brucker v. Georgia Casualty Co. 32 S.W.2d 1088 (1930); Frank Powell Lumber Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. 817 S.W.2d 648 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1991); Asel v. Order of U.C.T.A, 197 S.W.2d (1946).
4 Generally, for a claim under a policy to succeed, there must be coverage under that policy. The insured has the burden of showing that the loss and damages are covered by the insurance policy. 16 An insurer may argue that no coverage exists for the loss under the policy issued to the insured. In defense to an action for vexatious refusal to pay, an insurer can show that it has a reasonable cause or excuse to believe there is no liability under the policy and that it has a meritorious defense. 17 An insurer may show the court that there is an open question of law or fact and insist that there be a judicial determination made in regard to those questions. 18 When there is evidence of a vexatious and recalcitrant attitude by the insurer, however, the existence of an open question of law or fact does not preclude vexatious penalties. 19 In fact, [t]his language from DeWitt has been characterized as relaxing the burden necessary to support an award of vexatiousness. 20 Moreover, direct and specific evidence showing vexatious refusal is not required, as there may be a finding of vexatious delay upon a general survey and consideration of the whole testimony and all the facts and circumstances in connection with the case. 21 An insurer may also argue that the insured s conduct and actions should lead the court to find a favorable construction of the policy language and its meaning. 22 An insurer can point to misrepresentations that are made by an insured in the claim or proof of loss. 23 Furthermore, if an insured fails to comply with the policy s requirements, such as failing to give timely notice, this may be a violation of a condition precedent to coverage, and there may be a finding of no vexatious refusal American States Insur. Co. v. Mathis, 974 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). 17 Wood v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 980 S.W.2d 42, 55 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). 18 Hocker Oil Co., Inc. v. Barker-Phillips-Jackson, Inc., 997 S.W.2d 510, 523 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999) (quoting Wood v. Cafeco Ins. Co. of America, 980 S.W.2d 43, 55 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998); Hay v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 551 S.W.2d 954 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977) and Shirkey v. Guarantee Trust & Life Ins. Co., 258 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2008). 19 DeWitt v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 667 S.W.2d 700, 710 (Mo. banc 1984); Kimpton v. Spellman, 351 Mo. 674, 173 S.W.2d 886, 893 (1943); Berry v. Fed. Kemper Ins. Co., 621 S.W.2d 948, (Mo. Ct. App. 1981); Still v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 374 S.W.2d 95, 103 (Mo. 1963); Lemay Ferry Bank v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 347 Mo. 793, 149 S.W.2d 328, 331 (Mo. 1941). 20 Pace Prop., Inc. v. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 918 S.W.2d 883, 888 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). 21 DeWitt, 667 S.W.2d at 710; Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Long, 258 S.W.3d 469, (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2008). 22 Howard v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 164 S.W.2d 360, 366 (Mo. 1942). 23 Childers v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 799 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1990). 24 Columbia Union Nat. Bank v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 669 F.2d 1210, 1215 (8 th Cir. 1982)(applying Missouri law).
5 Damages If there is a total loss, the insurer is obligated to pay the face market value of that property, less depreciation. 25 Depreciation will apply from the issuance of the policy to when the loss occurred. 26 Damages may be available against an insurer who has failed or refused to make payment thirty days after due demand without substantial justification or a legitimate reason. If there is evidence showing that the refusal was vexatious and without reasonable cause, the court or jury may decide to award the plaintiff damages for vexatious refusal to pay and attorney s fees. This awarded amount would be in addition to what the plaintiff is entitled to under the provisions of the insurance contract and for interest. Moreover, as stated under the statute, an insurer s failure to appear and defend an action plaintiff has commenced will be deemed prima facie evidence that its failure to make payment was vexatious without reasonable cause. Damages that are recoverable in a vexatious refusal claim are limited to the amount of loss, interest, statutory penalty of specified percentage of loss, and reasonable attorneys fees. 27 Any punitive damage award or statutory penalty is subject to the amount the statute allows. 28 As such, under Missouri law, punitive damages cannot be recovered under a vexatious refusal to pay action. Interest is available in actions on insurance contracts. Creditors shall be allowed to receive interest at the rate of nine percent per annum, when no other rate is agreed upon, for all moneys after they become due and payable, on written contracts. 29 Section generally applies to insurance policies generally, 30 and once it applies, an award of prejudgment interest is compelled as a matter of right, and is not a matter for trial court discretion. 31 Moreover, the application of the statute is mandatory when the damages involved are liquidated. 32 Liquidated damages refers to damages that are due and fixed and determined or readily ascertainable by computation or a recognized standard. 33 As long as the claim is liquidated, interest will accrue even if the amount of damages is in dispute. The mere fact that a party denies liability or defends a claim 25 Huth v. General Acc. & Life Assur. Corp., Ltd., 536 S.W.2d 177 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). 26 Id. 27 Baker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 846 F.2d 495, 497 (8 th Cir. 1988) (citing Mo. Rev. Stat. Section (1986)). 28 Id. 29 V.A.M.S Schultz v. Queen Ins. Co., 399 S.W.2d 230, 236 (Mo. App. E.D. 1965). 31 Baris v. Layton, 43 S.W.3d 390, 398 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). 32 Huffstutter v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 778 S.W.2d 391, 395 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989). 33 J.R. Waymire Co. v. Antares Corp., 975 S.W.2d 243, 248 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998).
6 against him, or even the existence of a bona fide dispute as to the amount of the indebtedness, does not preclude recovery of interest. 34 The aforementioned Sections and authorize the award of additional damages if the plaintiff can prove the insurer vexatiously refused to pay a loss without reasonable cause or excuse. A plaintiff may be able to recover additional damages up to 20% of the first $1,500 of his or her loss, 10% of sums in excess of $1,500, as well as reasonable attorneys fees. When damages are shown by specific ascertainable values, and one party has failed to carry its burden to prove otherwise, there is no reason why summary adjudication should not include an award of damages. 35 Other Considerations Appraisal A common provision in property damage insurance policies is one stating that if the insured and the insurer do not agree upon the amount of loss, then either the insured or the insurer can make a written demand for an appraisal. If a policy contains such a provision, it will also usually establish how the appraisers are selected and how the appraisal is conducted. The enforceability of the provision, however, is not always certain. One Court of Appeals has held that an appraisal would be unnecessary where the insured elects to repair his house, and that the insured has a right to compel the insurer to repair or replace the house rather than accept damages as determined by an appraiser. 36 When a provision for compulsory appraisal is properly invoked, it acts as a condition precedent to an action on the policy. If, however, an inadequate appraisal has occurred, through no fault of the insured, he or she may still be able to pursue an action on the policy. 37 Furthermore, an appraisal acts as a condition precedent only when a party makes a demand for appraisal. 38 The insurer s right to demand an appraisal may be waived by a denial of all liability. 39 If an insured has agreed to receive a sum of money totaling the loss and both the insured and the insurer participate in an appraisal 34 Twin River Constr. Co. v. Pub. Water Dist. No. 6, 653 S.W.2d 682, 695 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983) (quoting 47 C.J.S. Interest and Usury, section 21, at 62). 35 Cornejo v. Crawford County, 153 S.W.3d 898, 904 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2005). 36 Hueser v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 901 S.W. 2d 138 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995). 37 Security Printing Co. v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 209 Mo. App. 422, 240 S.W. 263 (1922). 38 Yankoff v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 289 S.W.2d 471 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956). 39 Carp v. Queen Ins. Co., 104 Mo. App. 502, 79 S.W. 757 (1904).
7 where neither party questions the appraiser s findings on damages, the result of the appraisal is conclusive. 40 Recoverable Costs If the policy coverage is defined as repair or replacement cost, the court may find that the insured may not recover such costs unless he or she actually repairs or replaces the property. 41 Thus, when the policy unambiguously states that the insurer s liability is limited to the cost of repair or replacement of damaged property, the insurer's liability is capped at the amount it takes to return the property to substantially the same physical or mechanical condition prior to the loss. Unless repairs to the insured s property are inadequate, any reduction in market value of the repaired property is unrecoverable. 42 In partial loss claims, Missouri cases have prohibited the insurer from paying less than the actual cash value or replacement cost, withholding depreciation. 43 Courts have found that depreciation cannot be withheld from payment of total damages. 44 Proof of Claim or Loss Proofs of loss are exacted to enable the insurance company to determine whether the facts... were such that it ought to indemnify the insured. 45 Statements in a proof of loss are binding against the insured and an insurance company may rely on such statements until contradicted or explained by the insured. 46 As set forth by one Court of Appeals: Missouri law has departed from harsh interpretation of insurance contracts on the particular issue of delayed notice. Specifically, the Director of Insurance, as authorized under , RSMo 1994, adopted the following regulation to aid the interpretation of sections of the Unfair Trade Practice Act: No insurer shall 40 Abercrombie v. Allstate Ins. Co., 891 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1994). 41 Miller v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 6 S.W.3d 432 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1999). 42 Lupo v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2002); Camden v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 66 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2001). 43 See McMillin, 950 S.W.2d at 248; Abercrombie v. Allstate Insurance Co., 891 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994); R.S.Mo See Miller v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 6 S.W.3d 432 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999); Portell v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 888 S.W.2d 728 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994); and Landes v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 907 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995). 45 Wall v. Continental Cas. Co., 111 Mo. App. 504, , 86 S.W. 491, 496 (1905). 46 Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 472 (Mo. App. 1980).
8 deny any claim based upon the insured's failure to submit a written notice of loss within a specified time following any loss, unless this failure operates to prejudice the rights of the insurer. 20 C.S.R Furthermore, a line of Missouri cases have held that where the insured either fails to file a proof of claim or delays in doing so, the insurer must allege and prove that prejudice resulted from the delay in order to sustain the defense of delayed notice. 48 Business Interruption and Lost Profits Actions based in contract, tort, and business interruption allow for the recovery of lost profits. 49 When estimates of lost profits are not remote and speculative, but instead are made reasonably certain by proof of actual facts, with present data for a rational estimate of their amount, anticipated profits of a commercial business may be recovered. 50 [P]roof of income and expenses to the business for a reasonable time anterior to its interruption, with a consequent establishing of net profits during the previous period, is indispensable. 51 A policy may provide coverage for damages from business interruption. With proper proof, such as business income and expenses information for a period of time prior to business interruption, even a new business may recover for lost profits. 52 In instances where the evidence weighed in common experience demonstrates that a substantial pecuniary loss has occurred [but there is no exact proof] it is reasonable to require a lesser degree of certainty as to the extent of the loss, leaving a greater degree of discretion to the court or jury Tuterri's, Inc. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co., 894 S.W.2d 266, (Mo. Ct. App., W.D., March 14, 1995) 48 Id. (citing Schultz v. Queen Ins. Co., 399 S.W.2d 230, 234 (Mo. App. 1966); Katz Drug Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 647 S.W.2d 831, 836 (Mo. App. 1983); May v. Maryland Casualty Corp., 792 F.Supp. 63, 67 (E.D.Mo.1992); Greer v. Zurich Ins. Co., 441 S.W.2d 15, 31 (Mo. 1969); Dickhans v. Missouri Property Ins. Placement Facility, 705 S.W.2d 104, (Mo. App. 1986). 49 Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Dodson International Parts, Inc., 155 S.W.3d 50, 55 (Mo. banc 2005). 50 United Fire and Cas. Co. v. Historic Preservation Trust, 265 F.3d 722, 730 (8 th Cir. 2001); Coonis v. Rogers, 429 S.W.2d 709, (Mo. 1968). 51 Coonis, 429 S.W.2d at United Fire, 265 F.3d at 730; Indep. Bus. Forms, Inc. v. A-M Graphics, Inc., 127 F.3d 698, 703 (8 th Cir. 1997). 53 Gasser v. John Knox Village, 761 S.W.2d 728, 731 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
RECOGNIZING BAD FAITH CASES Michael J. Mohlman Smith Coonrod Mohlman, LLC 7001 W. 79th Street Overland Park, KS 66204 Telephone: (913) 495-9965; Facsimile: (913) 894-1686 email@example.com www.smithcoonrod.com
Settlement and Mediation of UM and UIM Claims Michael J. Mohlman Smith Coonrod Mohlman, LLC 7001 W. 79th Street Overland Park, KS 66204 Telephone: (913) 495-9965; Facsimile: (913) 894-1686 firstname.lastname@example.org
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TERRY E. BLUM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:03CV401 CDP ) ALLSTATE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
INSURANCE AND MISSOURI LAW After suffering a significant injury, most people understandably concentrate on the relatively straightforward elements of damages and liability. In doing so, however, injured
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION III PATRICK CORRIGAN, and ) No. ED99380 SEAN CORRIGAN, ) ) Appellants, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 16, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DOUG HAMBELTON, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CANAL
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION UNIVERSAL TELESERVICES : November Term 2002 ARIZONA, LLC, Florida Limited Liability : Company,
Case 5:02-cv-00226-CAR Document 93 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION JON A. NIXON, : Trustee of the Nixon Family Trust : dated
THE IMPACT OF A POLICYHOLDER S MISREPRESENTATIONS IN ILLINOIS JOHN D. DALTON AND MARK A. SWANTEK An insurer s options when the insured is making misrepresentations depend on the timing of those misrepresentations
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW
UNFAIR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT PRACTICES (REGULATIONS) AND PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION (REGULATIONS) THEIR POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON BAD FAITH ACTIONS Presented By: Jay Barry Harris, Esquire Krista
Case 4:14-cv-01527 Document 39 Filed in TXSD on 07/08/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
Rolling the Dice: Insurer s Bad Faith Failure to Settle within Limits By: Attorney Jeffrey J Vita and Attorney Bethany DiMarzio Clearly the obligation to accept a good-faith settlement within the policy
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES Title 13. Courts and Court Procedure Damages Regulation of Actions and Proceedings Article 20. Actions Part 8. Construction Defect Actions for Property Loss and Damage Construction
BAD FAITH IN WASHINGTON By Steve Jensen,, and An insurer s bad faith can give rise to two related causes of action under Washington law: 1) a cause of action for bad faith sounding in tort, and 2) a cause
Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:09-cv-1222-J-34JRK
THE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL Julie A. Shehane Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Telephone: 214-712 712-9546 Telecopy: 214-712 712-9540 Email: Julie.Shehane@cooperscully.com 2015 This
STACKING UP: UNDERSTANDING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COVERAGES The Missouri Bar Solo and Small Firm Conference June 14, 2013 Sidney Eckman Wheelan Tatlow, Gump, Faiella, and Wheelan, LLC 1 48--1 WHAT IS STACKING?
13-20-801. Short title Colorado Revised Statutes Title 13; Article 20; Part 8: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT ACTIONS FOR PROPERTY LOSS AND DAMAGE 1 This part 8 shall be known and may be cited as the Construction
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 1 PAUL ELKINS and KATHY ELKINS, husband and wife, v. Plaintiffs, QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a foreign insurer; COMMUNITYASSOCIATION
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL No. ED96759 INSURANCE CO., Respondent, Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County v. PAMELA C. COKE Honorable
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D December 18, 2009 No. 09-10562 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JM WALKER
Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 TKK USA INC., f/k/a The Thermos Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
Case 2:09-cv-00532-JPH Document 23 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL WALKER : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 09-532 BIG BURGER RESTAURANTS,
CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION Melissa Healy INTRODUCTION In Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Arizona Supreme Court
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District SOUTHERN DIVISION BIRI M. BLEVINS, JOHN T. BUSEY, No. ED99852 AND CHARLES W. JONES, Appellants, Appeal from the Circuit Court vs. of Cape Girardeau County
Case 0:07-cv-60771-JIC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/07 09:36:18 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MRI SCAN CENTER, INC., on itself and all others similarly situated,
HARVEY KRUSE, P.C. BAD FAITH Prepared By: Michael F. Schmidt P25213 HARVEY KRUSE, P.C. 1050 Wilshire Drive, Suite 320 Troy, MI 48084 (248) 649-7800 Fax (248) 649-2316 A. INTRODUCTION Subject to specific
WHAT IS IT, HOW TO DEAL WITH IT, AND WHERE IS IT GOING? Moderator: Paul H. Leonard Policyholders view: Andrew M. Weiner Insurers view: Wallace C. Magathan, III First Party Hull Claims Third Party Passenger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
If you have questions or would like further information regarding Uninsured-Underinsured Motorist Coverage, please contact: Jennifer Medenwald 312-540-7588 email@example.com Result Oriented. Success
Case 4:06-cv-00191 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 05/25/06 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BARBARA S. QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-00191
BAD FAITH LAW IN FLORIDA CINCINNATI, OH COLUMBUS, OH DETROIT, MI FT. MITCHELL, KY ORLANDO, FL SARASOTA, FL www.smithrolfes.com 2012 This handout is meant to provide a top-line overview of bad faith law
BOWLERS ALLEY, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case Number 13-13804 v. Honorable David M. Lawson THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION JULIA PARMELEE, f/k/a ) JULIA HANDLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:09CV357 CDP ) THE STANDARD FIRE ) INSURANCE COMPANY,
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-3381 Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corporation, doing business as Philadelphia Insurance Companies lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
Property Insurance By: Michael S. Sherman Chuhak & Tecson P.C. Chicago Extra-Contractual Damages Against Insurers: What is the Statute of Limitations? Background The Illinois Legislature has provided a
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION July 18, 2013 9:00 a.m. v No. 310473 Grand Traverse Circuit Court AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2011-028699-NF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 20, 2001 Session SUSAN WEISS, ET AL. v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 306126
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ESTATE OF TIMOTHY HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 23, 2007 v No. 259987 Oakland Circuit Court CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2000-024949-CZ and Defendant/Cross-Defendant-
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00350-CV 3109 Props, L.L.C.; Detour, Inc.; and Richard Linklater, Appellants v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Case: 09-20311 Document: 00511062202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
Terms and Conditions for Tax Services In the course of delivering services relating to tax return preparation, tax advisory, and assistance in tax controversy matters, Brady, Martz & Associates, P.C. (we
Case 1:10-cv-02583-CCB Document 28 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CRYSTAL WILLIAMS * * v. * Case No. CCB-10-2583 * TRAVCO INSURANCE CO. * ******
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1635 WELLS FARGO EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INCORPORATED, v. Plaintiff - Appellee, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; STATE FARM MUTUAL
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, VS. Plaintiff, WILLBROS CONSTRUCTION (U.S.) LLC, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-4634 MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE IN RE: GRACIA THOMPKINS and ERNIZE THOMPKINS, Case No. 99-26131whb Debtors. Chapter 7 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEBTORS MOTION TO DISBURSE
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAD OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION 1804-14 GREEN STREET ASSOCIATES, : June Term 2006 L.P., : Plaintiff, : No. 1763 v. : ERIE
GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER
BE PREPARED: COMMON CAT ADJUSTING ISSUES IN THE CAROLINAS AND VIRGINIA Tropical Storm Arthur is expected to impact the coast of the Carolinas and continue up the Eastern seaboard possibly as a Category
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. SUNSET FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Appellant. WD78337 FILED: September 29, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY : MAY TERM, 2004 & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, : No. 0621
MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT Insurance Bad Faith Statutory Bad-Faith Claims Following An Appraisal Award In Florida by David H. Shaw, II, Esq. Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP Tampa, Florida A commentary
U NDERSTANDING P ROPOSALS FOR S ETTLEMENT BY ELLEN KOEHLER LYONS I. Use of Offers of Judgment and Proposals for Settlement To Resolve Litigation or To Shift Litigation Costs A. Using Offers of Judgment
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-1414 ALLEN L. FEINGOLD; PHILLIP GODDARD v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Phillip Goddard, Appellant On Appeal from the District
TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Definitions. Buyer means the person, corporation or other entity purchasing Products from Seller. Products means all goods and materials to be provided pursuant to this Sales Acknowledgment.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 16, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-353 Lower Tribunal No.
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
Case 1:12-cv-01164-LY Document 38 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION CARONARDA FERNANDA BENBOW V. A-12-CV-1164 LY LIBERTY MUTUAL
November 21, 2014 New Michigan Supreme Court Decision Concerning Appraisal Awards The Michigan Supreme Court issued a Decision on November 18 th addressing the effect of an appraisal award on an insured
APPROVED Movant shall serve copies of this ORDER on any pro se parties, pursuant to CRCP 5, and file a certificate of service with the Court within 10 days. Dated: Jul 26, 2010 Catherine A. Lemon District
2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUZANNE BUTLER, Individually and as : Administratrix of the Estate
Cook v. Lowes Home Ctrs., Inc. NO. COA10-88 (Filed 18 January 2011) Workers Compensation foreign award subrogation lien in North Carolina reduced no abuse of discretion The trial court did not abuse its
STATE OF TEXAS CONTRACT FOR SERVICES COUNTY OF DALLAS THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF DALLAS, a Texas municipal corporation, located in Dallas County, Texas (hereinafter
BAD FAITH INSTRUCTIONS Introduction These instructions are not materially changed from RAJI (CIVIL) 4th. The duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract. Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz.
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, firstname.lastname@example.org
710.00 LIABILITY INSURANCE INTRODUCTION A contract of liability insurance contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Scroggins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 74 Ill.App.3d 1027, 1029; 393 N.E.2d
Case :0-cv-00-AG-MLG Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., a corporation, v. Plaintiffs, LIFELOCK, INC.,
Reverse and Remand; Opinion Filed November 19, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00658-CV INNOVATE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, L.P., Appellant V. YOUNGSOFT, INC., Appellee
Opinion issued June 11, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00636-CV SINHUE TEMPLOS, Appellant V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 333rd District Court
Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579
PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS: In these Terms and Conditions and all documents related to the Purchase Order: Purchaser means the entity issuing the Purchase Order as identified on
BAD FAITH VERDICTS The tort of bad faith failure to pay or investigate is still an often plead claim by the insured. Recent case law relies primarily on court precedent when determining whether the insured
2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
Title 210 NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE Chapter 60 - UNFAIR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY SETTLEMENT PRACTICES RULE 001. Authority. This rule is adopted under the authority of the Unfair Insurance Claims Settlement
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SHARIFF BLACKWELL, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 14-878 : ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., : Defendant. : : MEMORANDUM OPINION RUFE, J.
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO BUSEY TRUCK EQUIPMENT, INC., No. ED93091 Appellant, Appeal from the Circuit Court of vs. Cape Girardeau County AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE