Law Commons^™

Insurance Appraisal In Texas And Its Place In Coverage Litigation, Brendan K. Mcbride, William J. Chriss, Matthew R. Pearson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Insurance appraisal is a contractually agreed process for resolving a disagreement between the insurance carrier and the policyholder about the amount of a loss under an insurance policy. Appraisal clauses have been a feature of insurance policies in Texas for well over a century. Old Texas cases were uniform to the effect that appraisal was a method to establish the “amount” of the loss under circumstances where coverage was not in dispute, but a recent line of cases has allowed insurers to escape liability for breach of contract, attorneys’ fees, statutory and common law “bad faith,” and even liability under …

The Battle To Define The Scope Of Attorney-Client Privilege In The Context Of Insurance Company Bad Faith: A Judicial War Zone, Steven Plitt, Joshua D. Rogers

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] "The attorney-client privilege is the "oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law."' The privilege is "[d]eeply rooted in public policy," and plays a 'vital role' in the administration of justice." As such, the privilege is "traditionally deemed worthy of maximum legal protection"' and "it remains one of the most carefully guarded privileges and is not readily to be whittled down." The privilege has come under assault in the insurance bad faith context in recent decades resulting in a "whittling down" of the privilege for insurance companies as a target party. Over the past couple …

The Personal Liability Of Insurance Claims Adjusters For Insurance Bad Faith, Chad G. Marzen

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bad Faith At Middle Age: Comments On “The Principle Without A Name (Yet),” Insurance Law, Contract Law, Specialness, Distinctiveness, And Difference, Robert H. Jerry Ii

Robert H. Jerry II

In this article, Robert Jerry expounds on Professor Abraham's article on insurer liability for bad faith by pointing out that the concept of institutional bad faith is not a new phenomenon, but rather, one that is as old as the insurance industry itself. Jerry focuses on Abraham's depiction of the "specialness" and "distinctiveness" of insurance, while exploring additional instances of "rotten to the core" systemic bad faith dating as far back as the nineteenth century. Much like Abraham did in his article on bad faith, Jerry uses these examples of systemic bad faith to further his assertion that the insurance …

In California Excess Liability Cases, Does “Bad Faith” In Law Equal “Strict Liability” In Practice?, Roger D. Marlow, Ronald E. Magnuson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Overruling Of Royal Globe: A "Royal Bonanza" For Insurance Companies, But What Happens Now?, Michael J. Gainer

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bad Faith At Middle Age: Comments On The Principle Without A Name (Yet), Insurance Law, Contract Law, Specialness, Distinctiveness, And Difference, Robert H. Jerry Ii

Faculty Publications

In this article, Robert Jerry expounds on Professor Abraham's article on insurer liability for bad faith by pointing out that the concept of institutional bad faith is not a new phenomenon, but rather, one that is as old as the insurance industry itself Jerry focuses on Abraham's depiction of the "specialness" and "distinctiveness" of insurance, while exploring additional instances of "rotten to the core" systemic bad faith dating as far back as the nineteenth-century. Much like Abraham did in his article on bad faith, Jerry uses these examples of systemic bad faith to further his assertion that the insurance industry, …

Bad Faith At Middle Age: Comments On “The Principle Without A Name (Yet),” Insurance Law, Contract Law, Specialness, Distinctiveness, And Difference, Robert H. Jerry Ii

UF Law Faculty Publications

In this article, Robert Jerry expounds on Professor Abraham's article on insurer liability for bad faith by pointing out that the concept of institutional bad faith is not a new phenomenon, but rather, one that is as old as the insurance industry itself. Jerry focuses on Abraham's depiction of the "specialness" and "distinctiveness" of insurance, while exploring additional instances of "rotten to the core" systemic bad faith dating as far back as the nineteenth century. Much like Abraham did in his article on bad faith, Jerry uses these examples of systemic bad faith to further his assertion that the insurance …

Bad Faith In South Carolina Insurance Contracts : From Tyger River Pine Co. V. Maryland Cas. Co. To Mitchell V. Fortis Ins. Co., Constance A. Anastopoulo

Constance A. Anastopoulo

No abstract provided.

The Insurance Function Of Contracts Revisited, Bruno Meyerhof Salama

Bruno Meyerhof Salama

One of the central problems in contract law is to define the frontier between legal and illegal breaches of promises. The distinction between good and bad faith is perhaps the conceptual tool most commonly used to tell one from the other. Lawyers spend a lot of energy trying to frame better definitions of the concepts of good and bad faith based on principles of ethics or justice, but often pay much less attention to theories dealing with the incentives that can engender good faith behavior in contractual relationships. By describing the economics of what Stiglitz defined as “explicit” and “implicit” …

A Tarnished Golden Rule — Why Badillo V. Mid Century Insurance Co. Demands Further Clarification From The Oklahoma Supreme Court Regarding The Tort Of Bad Faith, Andrew Kernan

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Use Of Colossus To Measure The General Damages Of A Personal Injury Claim Demonstrates Good Faith Claims Handling, Dawn R. Bonnett

Cleveland State Law Review

Because the law of bad faith is the most volatile of the causes of action, this Note will discuss how using Colossus demonstrates good faith claims handling by insurance companies. Initially, this Note will discuss how Colossus works so readers have an understanding of the product. Following the Colossus section, the Note will discuss the history of bad faith. Finally, this Note will analyze how Colossus assists insurers in meeting the different good faith standards across the nation.

Crisci V. Security Insurance Co.: The Dawn Of The Modern Era Of Insurance: Bad Faith And Emotional Distress Damages, Jeffrey E. Thomas

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Sounds Of Silence: Waiting For Courts To Acknowledge That Public Policy Justifies Awarding Damages To Third-Party Claimants When Liability Insurers Deal With Them In Bad Faith, Francis J. Mootz Iii

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Sounds Of Silence: Waiting For Courts To Acknowledge That Public Policy Justifies Awarding Damages To Third Party Claimants When Liability Insurers Deal With Them In Bad Faith, Francis J. Mootz Iii

Scholarly Works

A long-standing and virtually unchallenged doctrinal rule provides that a liability insurance carrier owes no duties in tort or contract to a third-party claimant who has been injured by its insured. As a matter of doctinal consistency and logic, the traditional rule makes some sense. The liability insurer has no contractual relationship with the claimant, and third-party beneficiary doctrine is not easily used to impose duties. Moreover, by stepping into the shoes of the insured tortfeasor to whom it owes a heightened duty of good faith, the insurer is in an adversarial relationship with the claimant that makes it difficult …

Timeless And Ahead Of Its Time: Lach's V. Fidelity & Casualty Of New York, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The publication of Judge Keeton's important article “inventing” the reasonable expectations doctrine in 1971 is notable for infusing a good deal of intellectual energy into the study of insurance law, particularly judicial decisions about insurance coverage. Keeton's article, which deduced from cases the principle that courts tended to interpret policies to vindicate the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured, has rightly been viewed as a milestone. It clarified an area of law long seen as inconsistent or result-oriented. It spurred additional important scholarship in the area and elevated insurance caselaw from something of a backwater to at least a respectable …

Recent Case Developments, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Recent case developments in Insurance Law in the years 2000 and 2001.

Post Claim Underwriting, Thomas C. Cady, Georgia Lee Gates

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recent Case Developments, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Recent case developments in Insurance Law in the years 1999 and 2000.

The Bad News About Good Faith For Excess Um Carriers, Robert L. Tucker

Akron Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Bad News About Good Faith For Excess Um Carriers, Robert L. Tucker

Robert L Tucker

No abstract provided.

The Law Of Insurance Company Claim Misconduct In West Virginia, Thomas C. Cady, Amy Andrews, Daniel Cuppett, Mark Glover, Mary Loss

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Developments In West Virginia's Insurance Bad Faith Law--Where Do We Go From Here, Thomas V. Flaherty, Rebecca L. Ross, Michael D. Sullivan, Charles T. Blair

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Tort Of Bad Faith In First-Party Insurance Transactions: Refining The Standard Of Culpability And Reformulating The Remedies By Statute, Roger C. Henderson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article explores the common-law and statutory background of the tort of bad faith in first-party insurance situations analyzes the varying standards of culpability that have been developed by the courts and suggests a uniform statutory solution to the problems created by the varying standards. The statute also tailors the remedies more closely to the particular type of insurer wrongdoing. The proposed remedies recognize the dual nature of the insurer-insured relationship, that is, one based upon contract and tort concepts. Such a statute would eliminate many of the ambiguities and other deficiencies in the common law of those states that …

Judicial Bias, The Insurance Industry And Consumer Protection: An Empirical Analysis Of State Supreme Courts’ Bad-Faith, Breach-Of-Contract, Breach-Of-Covenant-Of-Good-Faith And Excess-Judgment Decisions, 1900–1991, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

Consumers are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the services and products that the American insurance industry provides. Correspondingly, they are filing an ever-increasing number of lawsuits against insurers in state courts. While courts have ruled equally in favor of insurers and policyholders, advocates for both consumers and the insurance industry strongly believe “judicial bias” or “judicial hostility” permeates state supreme courts.

Some United States Supreme Court Justices have argued that state supreme courts are hostile towards insurance carriers. Commentators have also viciously criticized state supreme courts for being biased against insurance carriers. The contrary view that state supreme courts are anti-consumer …

The Need For Revisiting The Imposition Of Bad Faith Liability: Industrial Indemnity Co. V. Kallevig, J. Benson Porter, Jr.

Seattle University Law Review

This Note posits two recommendations. First, in order to harmonize the bad faith standards applied in Kallevig and Gingrich, the Kallevig reasonable justification standard should be applied in situations involving questions similar to those confronted by the Gingrich court. Second, this Note contends that the Kallevig court's analysis imposing liability under the CPA was defective because it failed to take proper account of the frequency requirement within the unfair trade practices regulations. By ignoring the frequency provision, the Kallevig decision allows inconsistent treatment of similar factual situations depending on whether the decision is being made by an agency or …

Bad Faith In First Party Insurance Contracts—What's Next, Paula J. Casey

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Torts—Tort Of Bad Faith In First Party Actions Recognized, Chet Roberts

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Insurance - Settlement - Extent Of Insurer's Liability For Wrongful Refusal To Settle When Subsequent Judgment Exceeds Policy Limits, Michael B. Lewiston

Michigan Law Review

The insured, while driving a borrowed truck, injured plaintiff and his wife. Defendant, insurer on a policy which contained liability limits of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident, was notified of the accident but refused to defend the subsequent suit against the insured on the ground that plaintiff's claim was not covered by the policy. Defendant refused an offer to settle the claim for $4,000 solely on the basis of its belief as to coverage, though it was aware that the insured was financially unable to effect his own settlement. A judgment of $25,000 for a plaintiff and $1,250 …

Insurance-Liability Of Insurer For Judgment In Excess Of Policy Limits, Clinton R. Ashford S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

A liability insurer has issued a policy, reserving the sole right to effect a settlement, and refuses to settle, within the limits of the policy, a claim against the insured. A judgment in excess of the policy limit is then recovered against the insured. These circumstances present the question whether the insurer may be liable to the insured for the amount of the judgment in excess of the policy limit.

This comment will be limited to consideration of cases involving only the above facts, and no attempt will be made to consider the liability of the insurer for failing to …