Source: https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2010/12/index.html
Timestamp: 2020-02-17 23:20:34
Document Index: 260432601

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', '§ 3', '§ 9', '§ 3', '§ 9', '§ 3', '§ 48']

Claimant's Attorney's Testimony Held Relevant: Bad Faith Liability Claim Handling.
The Injured Claimant's Attorney's Testimony was held relevant and discoverable in a Federal Case based on a Claim of Bad Faith handling of the Underlying Claim:
Although it is true that the focus of an insurance bad faith case is on the conduct of the insurer, not the insured, under the totality of circumstances test the conduct of the insured may be relevant in specific instances. See generally Mendez v. Unitrin Direct Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 8:06-CV-563-T-24MAP, 2007 WL 2696795, at *3-4 (M.D.Fla. Sept.12, 2007). For example, the motives and conduct of an insured and his attorney may be relevant to the issues of whether the insured precluded the insurer from fully investigating the claim and whether the insured precluded the insurer from ever having a reasonable opportunity to settle a claim. Geico Cas. Co. v. Beauford, No. 8:05-CV-697-T-24-EAJ, 2007 WL 2412953, at * 1 (M.D.Fla. Aug.21, 2007).
Here, Odom's motives and conduct during the settlement discussions are relevant and discoverable in addressing whether the insurer had a reasonable opportunity to settle the underlying claim. “In Florida, the question of whether an insurer has acted in bad faith in handling claims against the insured is determined under the ‘totality of the circumstances' standard.” Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So.2d 665, 680 (Fla.2004). Because these circumstances include the existence of a realistic possibility of settlement, evidence of conduct by an underlying claimant's counsel during settlement negotiations may be relevant and admissible.
Kemm v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Download Kemm v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 8.08cv299, Order of U.S.M.J. Filed July 7, 2009) PUBLIC ACCESS, also published as 2009 WL 1954146 *3 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2009)(Jenkins, U.S.M.J.)(authorized password required to access Westlaw). [Emphasis added.]
Parenthetically, the subsequent history of the Kemm Case reflects several developments of note. A Jury Verdict finding no Bad Faith in Settlement, i.e., in favor of the Defendant Insurance Company in that Case, was filed on March 3, 2010 following a Jury Trial of the Case. The Policyholders-Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on June 14, and within approximately 5 weeks they filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of their Appeal in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which was granted on July 21, 2010.
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 28, 2010 at 12:15 PM in Claims Handling, Discovery, Settlement Demands and Offers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
No Coverage, No Bad Faith Including Tennessee Statutory Claims.
Following a long line of similar rulings in cases across the United States, a Federal District Judge in Tennessee concluded that where there is no Insurance Coverage, there is no Bad Faith Claim. The Judge's ruling in this case included no Tennessee Statutory "Bad Faith Refusal to Pay" Claims under Title 56 "Insurance," Chapter 7 "Policies and Policyholders," Part 1 "General Provisions," Section 56-7.105 (now entitled "Additional Liability Upon Insurers and Bonding Companies for Bad-Faith Failure to Pay Promptly"):
For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted because the allegations and claims in the underlying action did not state claims covered under the Defendant's policy. The claims in the prior action were excluded under the failure to conform exclusion in the Defendant's policy.
Clarcor, Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co., Download Clarcor, Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co. (M.D. Tenn. Case No. 3.10.00336, Memorandum [Opinion] Filed December 16, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS, also published as 2010 WL 5211607 *1 (M.D. Tenn. December 16, 2010).
Additional features of the Clarcor case are posted on Insurance Claims and Issues Web Log.
Statutory Claims based on alleged Bad Faith Failure to Settle or Pay are analyzed in § 3:25 (Third-Party or Liability Insurance) and §§ 9:14 - 9:16, by Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" (Shepard's/McGraw-Hill Second Edition; West Publishing Company 2010 Supplement). "'Bad Faith' Liability Without Coverage: Third Party" Claims are addressed in id., § 3:100, and "'Bad Faith' Liability Without Coverage: First Party" Claims are addressed in id., § 9:25.
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 27, 2010 at 09:11 AM in Bad Faith: Do you want Coverage with that?, Statutory Bad Faith | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Happy Holidays in 2010 and a Happy New Year in 2011!
Happy Holidays This Year
Happy New Year in the Year to Come!
Remember the Homeless!
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 23, 2010 at 04:27 AM in Good Faith | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
More On Foreclosure Fraud, Modification Madness Lawsuits.
In the same week as the Nevada Attorney General (and the Arizona Attorney General) filed suit over Foreclosure Fraud and Modification Madness, posted here on Sunday, December 19, 2010, a Jury in U.S. District Court in Nevada awarded $79,000.00 in Compensatory Damages and assessed $5,100,000.00 ($5.1 Million) in Punitive Damages in a Foreclosure and Modification Fraud case. The Nevada Jury award is reported by Gretchen Morgenson, "Fair Game/Opening the Bag of Mortgage Tricks" p. 1, col. 1 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "SundayBusiness" Section, Sunday, December 19, 2010).
The Jury reportedly returned a Verdict on all Counts. The Complaint contained causes of actions or Claims for Conspiracy, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Id.
The suit was filed against loan servicers by a group of 50 Plaintiff investors in commercial loans. "Loan servicers act as intermediaries between borrowers and their lenders, collecting monthly payments and real estate taxes and forwarding them to the appropriate parties." Id. In that case, the Defendant loan servicers allegedly:
1. Took money rightfully owed to the Plaintiff investors holding the loans, by "improperly charging" various items, including:
a. "default interest,"
b. "late fees and"
c. "loan origination fees".
2. Constructed obstacles to loan repayments and hid them from the Plaintiffs when Borrowers "tried to pay off or otherwise resolve disputed loans," including:
a. They refused to negotiate, or
b. They counseled Borrowers to seek loan modifications for which the Defendant loan servicers allegedly "reaped undisclosed fees".
More and other investors are expected to grow the list of lawsuits over Foreclosure Fraud and Modification Madness. Id. The results of the past week are certainly no inhibition to that happening.
The harmful effects of Foreclosure Fraud and Modification Madness on Mortgage Insurance Claims are explored by Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" § 3:106, "Mortgage Insurance" (West Publishing Co. 2010 Supplement).
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 21, 2010 at 04:59 AM in Bad Faith, Damages, Fiduciary Duty, Foreclosures, Fraud, Good Faith, Mortgage Insurance, Punitive Damages in Bad Faith Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Foreclosure Fraud, Modification Madness Trigger Lawsuits by Arizona, Nevada.
The Attorneys General of both Arizona and Nevada have filed Fraud lawsuits against the Bank of America. Both lawsuits were filed in response to consumer complaints concerning Foreclosure Loan Modification procedures by BOA in those States. The BOA procedures appear to be applied across the nation.
The Nevada lawsuit was filed in the Eighth Judicial District of the State of Nevada. A review of a Press Release issued by the Nevada Attorney General, reveals that the AG's Complaint is filled with Fraud allegations related principally to Foreclosure Loan Modifications but also to alleged Foreclosure Fraud. Download Nevada Attorney General 12.17.10 Press Release, Nevada Attorney General Sues Bank of America for Deceiving Nevada Homeowners.
The Arizona lawsuit was filed by the outgoing Arizona Attorney General in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Perhaps the incoming Arizona Attorney General will find it necessary to "apologize" to someone at the Bank of America, if for some unknown and unknowable reason he dismisses the Fraud lawsuit after he takes office.) The Arizona lawsuit alleges both "violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and violations of the consent judgment entered in March 2009 between Arizona and the Countrywide companies owned by Bank of America." Arizona Attorney General 12.17.10 Press Release, Terry Goddard [the current Arizona Attorney General] Charges Bank of America With Mortgage Fraud".
Perhaps these two lawsuits are only the beginning. Time will tell.
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 19, 2010 at 04:49 AM in Foreclosures, Fraud, Mortgage Insurance | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)
Registered Trademark Claims "Arising Out Of" Bad Faith Use, Excluded.
In Sanderson v. Zurich American Insurance Co., Download Sanderson v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 8.09.cv.1755, Order Filed December 6, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS, also published as 2010 WL 5058519 *7 (M.D. Fla. December 6, 2010)(authorized password required to access Westlaw), a Federal Judge held that various Trademark Infringement Claims against a Policyholder are excluded under Florida Law: "Each claim is predicated upon the bad faith, deceptive, or misleading use of a registered trademark."
"Bad Faith" is a description which condenses variations on a theme. The multiple variations are explored in Chapter 2, "History and Contrasting Good Faith Requirements," Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" (Shepard's/McGraw-Hill Second Edition; West Publishing Company 2010 Supplement).
Please Read The Disclaimer. See also the analysis of other features of the above Sanderson v. Zurich American Insurance Company decision on Insurance Claims and Issues Web Log posted today.
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 17, 2010 at 09:21 AM in Bad Faith | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Washington State Insurance Fair Conduct Notice Requirement, Amended Complaint: Inapplicable.
The Washington State Insurance Fair Conduct Act was enacted in 2007. It can be found Online available as PUBLIC ACCESS, or at West's RCWA § 48.30.015 entitled, "Unreasonable Denial of a Claim for Coverage or Payment of Benefits". By its terms, it is available to any statutorily defined "First Party Claimant" who is "unreasonably denied a claim for coverage or payment of benefits". Such a First Party Claimant may recover actual damages plus statutorily mandated awards of a reasonable attorney's fee "and actual and statutory litigation costs, including expert witness fees". Any award under the Washington State Statute may also include treble damages, in appropriate cases defined by the Statute.
The Washington State Insurance Fair Conduct Act was recently interpreted in the case of Jamir v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., Download Jamir v. Standard Fire Insurance Co. (W.D. Wash. Case No. C10.569, Order Filed December 3, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS, also published as 2010 WL 5012543 (W.D. Wash. December 3, 2010)(authorized password required to access Westlaw). In that case, an Insurance Company requested dismissal of a Claim under the Statute, by filing a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Defendant argued that by amending the Complaint to include a statutory Claim, the Plaintiff violated the Statute's notice requirement.
The motion was denied. First, although the Defendant's motion apparently addressed only the Insurance Fair Conduct Act Claim, the Federal Court pointed out that there were no WSIFCA Claims in the original Complaint. The Federal Court noted in that case that the Statute "clearly recognizes that common law and other claims not subject to the IFCA are not subject to the notice requirement." Jamir v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 2010 WL 5012543 at *2.
Second, the original Complaint was amended to include the IFCA Claims and notice was not required by the Washington State Statute in that circumstance, the Federal Court ruled. Id. Accordingly, the Federal Court denied the Defendant Insurance Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the IFCA Claim.
Express Statutory Causes of Action against First-Party Insurance Companies are examined in Section 9:14 by Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" (Shepard's/McGraw-Hill Second Edition; West Publishing Company 2010 Supplement). Many Defenses to them are examined in id., Chapter 11.
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 14, 2010 at 04:35 AM in Attorney's Fees, Damages, Fire Insurance, Unfair and Deceptive Practices | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
No Mortgage Modifications for Fannie and Freddie. FHFA Snubs FHA.
The Federal Housing Administration reports to President Obama. The FHA takes the position that it would bring essential help to the Foreclosure Fiasco to modify mortgages for underwater borrowers, those "whose homes are worth less than they owe on their mortgages". Dina ElBoghdady and Zachary A. Goldfarb, "Housing Agencies Clash Over Mortgage-Relief Program" (Washington Post Online, Friday, December 10, 2010).
The Federal Housing Finance Agency is independent of the White House. The FHFA "oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," which are liable on the vast majority of mortgages. FHFA officials have expressed concern, if not downright fear, that Federal Taxpayers would bear the burden of the proposed mortgage modifications for underwater borrowers. The FHFA will not agree to hear the cries that would be likely to result from that pain. See id.
In the meantime, many Homeowners who are also in pain, because through no fault of their own their homes are worth much less than the remaining amounts of the Mortgages on them, are not heard or, if heard, are ignored.
Good Faith and Fair Dealing demand a fair hearing, even if the result is not something to which you or I would agree, so long as the result comes from a fair Hearing.
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 12, 2010 at 08:00 PM in Foreclosures, Good Faith | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
No Jury Trial Rights in Massachusetts for Chapter 93A Claims.
In Bryksa v. B&B Protector Plans, Inc., Download Bryksa v. B&B Protector Plans, Inc. (D. Mass. Case No. 10.11319, Memorandum & Order Filed December 1, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS, also published as 2010 WL 4939954 *1 (D. Mass. December 1, 2010)(authorized password required to access Westlaw), Mr. and Mrs. Bryksa sued B&B and Greenwich Insurance Company for alleged "unfair settlement practices, a violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and ch. 176D) and intentional infliction of emotional distress." The Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs' Jury Trial Demand on the Chapter 93A Count and the Federal Court granted the Motion.
First, the Federal Court noted that Massachusetts State Courts did not provide Jury Trials for Chapter 93A Claims "because such claims are considered equitable in nature." Second and more importantly, although there was some contrary authority, the Federal Courts applying Massachusetts Law also generally held that Chapter 93A Claims are equitable in nature or at least "not suits at common law." Bryksa v. B&B Protector Plans, Inc., 2010 WL 4939954 at *2.
"For that reason, the Court concludes that there is no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial with respect to a Chapter 93A claim." Id.
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 09, 2010 at 04:26 AM in Unfair and Deceptive Practices | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 07, 2010 at 03:16 PM in Bad Faith, Claims Handling, Good Faith, Releases, Settlement Demands and Offers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Secret Complaint Against JP Morgan.
Anecdotal reports have surfaced of a hidden Complaint against JP Morgan. Supposedly, the Bankruptcy Trustee for the Bernie Madoff Ponzi Estate sued JP Morgan on unspecified, unreported, unknown Claims that JP Morgan basically enabled Mr. Madoff's Fraud.
"The complaint was filed under seal to conform with a confidentiality agreement the bank negotiated with the trustee when it first began responding to his documents." Diana B. Henriques, "Madoff Trustee Sues JPMorgan, Saying It Ignored 'Suspicions'" p. B4, col. 1 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "Business" Section, Friday, December 3, 2010).
So, let us see if we get this. The Trustee demanded documents from JP Morgan, presumably by serving a Subpoena Duces Tecum. JP Morgan responded with a "No, not unless when you sue us you can keep it secret." Is that how it worked? If so, why is the Federal Court bound by this supposed 'agreement'?
Why are we? Do we not have a right to know who enabled Fraud in the United States? Or only when it is convenient for potential Defendants to let us know?
Notice provisions in Insurance Policies require the Insurance Companies involved, if any, to know. Assuming that the Notice provisions were not breached, that is.
That is what we need. A public contract. Oh, wait. We have one! Is that not called the Constitution?
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 06, 2010 at 08:46 AM in Fraud | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Bad Faith Computed, But "Spindled" Order Rejected.
Old saying for computer use: "Do not spindle, fold or mutilate!"
An Appellate Court has held that a Trial Court in Florida was correct in concluding that the record of a certain case "amply supported the trial judge's conclusion" of Discovery Bad Faith, but reversed an Order to impose Sanctions for the Discovery Bad Faith on the grounds that the Order did not satisfy requirements.
"This appeal concerns a circuit court's decision to impose sanctions for a party's bad-faith failure to participate in pre-trial discovery. Because the order imposing sanctions does not meet the requirements of either rule or common law, we reverse." Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Chase, Download Horace Mann Insurance Co. (Fla. 1st DCA Case No. 1D09.5572, Opinion Filed November 30, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS; STATED NOT FINAL, also published as 2010 WL 4838373 *1 (Fla. 1st DCA November 30, 2010)(authorized password required to access Westlaw).
A clear case in which the record of Bad Faith computed, but the Order did not.
Posted by Dennis Wall on December 02, 2010 at 04:38 AM in Bad Faith | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)