In the opposition brief filed by Recology on Thursday, the company said “That BRIC has disavowed the reason it initially denied coverage speaks volumes and goes a long way toward establishing bad faith.” It said “A reasonable jury could determine BRIC’s changing coverage positions, coupled with the other reversals (as to whether it disputes Recology’s quantum of loss and whether it would honor its promise not to seek another continuance after obtaining the extensions it desired) and other conduct, is bad faith.”
This case originates from a coverage dispute dating back to 2015, when Recology said it learned that some of its employees were engaging in two separate schemes by which they would take kickbacks from waste haulers allowing them to dump waste at one of Recology’s facilities at a lower rate or in some cases for free. Recology submitted a claim to BRIC that exceeded $2.5 million, which represented lost revenue.
BRIC initially agreed to compensate Recology for the amount of employee kickbacks Recology was able to prove, including the costs of their investigation. However, BRIC refused to cover the Recology for what it refers to as “anticipated revenue.”
