(USA Herald) - In the world of insurance, bad faith claims are an ongoing issue that policyholders face when dealing with their insurers. Bad faith claims refer to instances where an insurance company refuses to pay out a claim or denies benefits to policyholders in a deliberate attempt to avoid paying out what they owe. This can have severe financial consequences for policyholders, who are often left with no choice but to sue their insurance company to seek justice.

In this article, we will explore some recent developments in bad faith claims and insurance law. Investigative journalist Samuel Lopez has been following these developments and has provided his insights into the latest cases.

Nebraska Supreme Court Clarifies the Assignability of First-Party Bad Faith Claims

In two companion cases, Millard Gutter Co. v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. and Millard Gutter Co. v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., the Supreme Court of Nebraska clarified that bad faith tort claims cannot be assigned in the first-party context. In the first case, Millard Gutter sued Shelter Mutual Insurance Company as an "assignee of various insured property owners" who suffered property damage from a storm, asserting claims for both contractual and tortious bad faith. Shelter moved to dismiss the bad faith claims for lack of standing, and the district court granted Shelter's motions, eventually dismissing the action with prejudice.

On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that while the proceeds from the tort of bad faith could be assigned (absent a statute to the contrary), the right to prosecute or control such an action could not be assigned. The court also found that an assignment could not create a contractual relationship between the insurer and assignee and affirmed the dismissal of the contractual bad faith claims. In the second case, the Nebraska Supreme Court again affirmed that the first-party tort of bad faith could not be assigned for prosecution.

Middle District of Louisiana Addresses the Discoverability of Loss Reserves

In eQHealth AdviseWell, Inc. v. Homeland Ins. Co., the insured sought production of Homeland Insurance Company's loss reserve information in a first-party insurance dispute. Homeland objected, contending that the information was irrelevant and protected by the work product doctrine because the loss reserves were based on counsel's estimate of anticipated legal expenses, settlement value, length of time to resolve the litigation, geographic considerations, and other facts in anticipation of litigation.

After acknowledging a split in authority regarding the production of loss reserve information in bad faith cases, the district court ultimately found that the information was relevant and subject to production unless a privilege applied. The court observed deficiencies in Homeland's privilege log and ordered the parties to confer after a supplemental log was produced. It further ordered Homeland to produce all loss reserve information generated prior to the date that Homeland asserted the work product doctrine began to run.

Second Circuit Enforces Policy's Contractual Limitations Period for Both Contractual and Bad Faith Claims

In Sportsinsurance.com, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., the Second Circuit enforced the policy's contractual limitations clause for both contractual and bad faith claims. In January 2016, Sportsinsurance.com, Inc. discovered its CFO was embezzling from the company and subsequently submitted a theft claim to its insurer, Hanover Insurance Company, Inc. Hanover denied the claim in January 2017. After its attempts to seek redress from the CFO failed, Sportsinsurance filed suit against Hanover in March 2020.

Hanover contended that the suit was time-barred under the policy's contractual limitations clause, which required Sportsinsurance to commence legal action within two years after discovering the loss. On interlocutory appeal, the Second Circuit found that the contractual limitations period was unambiguous and reasonable.

Conclusion

The cases discussed in Samuel Lopez's Insurance Bad Faith Report highlight the ongoing struggle between policyholders and insurers in the area of bad faith. While some courts have clarified the boundaries of what can be assigned in the context of first-party bad faith claims, others have addressed the discoverability of loss reserve information and the enforcement of policy contractual limitations periods.

Policyholders and their advocates can take comfort in the fact that there are legal remedies available to them in the event that an insurer engages in bad faith conduct. However, it is important to seek the advice of an experienced attorney in order to understand the nuances of the law and to properly evaluate the strength of any potential bad faith claim.

Samuel Lopez's Insurance Bad Faith Report serves as a reminder that insurers have a duty to act in good faith towards their policyholders. When insurers fail to meet this duty, policyholders may be entitled to compensation for the resulting harm.