Opinion ID: 993400
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Abandonment of the Bad-faith Claim.

Text: In its complaint, Dilmar included a cause of action for bad faith refusal to pay insurance benefits. Dilmar initially argued that Federated's failure to affirmatively provide notice of the passage of the 1990 Amendments was the basis for the bad faith claim (Dil. Opp. to Mot. for S.J. at 21). In its supplemental brief to the district court, submitted after the hearing on Federated's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dilmar said, Although Federated did not voluntarily offer coverage to Dilmar after the 1990 Amendments became effective, Federated's failure to volunteer coverage should not be considered a denial of coverage, because Dilmar never made a demand for coverage at that time (Dil. Supp. Opp. to Mot. for S.J. at 3). The district court held that by acknowledging that Federated's failure to volunteer coverage where no re-tender had been made was not a `denial' of coverage, Dilmar has necessarily abandoned its bad faith claim. In arguing bad faith as of the 1990 Amendments at the summary judgment stage, which Dilmar did in its original opposition to Federated's motion, Dilmar was arguing for a 1990 accrual date for its claims. Thus, Dilmar had to change its position in the supplemental brief. However, by changing its argument to say that Federated's failure to volunteer coverage in 1990 was not a denial of coverage, Dilmar was no longer asserting a bad faith claim. Dilmar abandoned its bad faith cause of action in its supplemental opposition to Federated's Motion for Summary Judgment. The district court correctly decided this issue in granting summary judgment.