Opinion ID: 2257727
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bad Faith and Late Payment Statute Violations

Text: [¶ 14] Greenvall argues that the court erred as a matter of law by entering judgment in favor of Maine Mutual on the estate's bad faith claim. Although we have previously refuse[d] to recognize an independent tort of bad faith resulting from an insurer's breach of its duty to act in good faith and deal fairly with an insured[.] Marquis v. Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co., 628 A.2d 644, 652 (Me.1993), the third count of Greenvall's complaint sets forth a freestanding claim for bad faith. In Marquis, we noted that an insurer's duty of good faith and fair dealing arises from an implied covenant in the insurance contract, and limits an insured's remedies for breach of the duty to the traditional remedies for breach of contract, and the additional statutory remedies provided in the insurance code. Id. Even viewed in the light most favorable to Greenvall, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Maine Mutual breached its contractual duties by acting in bad faith or unfairly. Cf. Chiapetta v. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 583 A.2d 198, 202 (Me.1990). [¶ 15] Finally, contrary to Greenvall's contentions, the trial court did not err by granting judgment to Maine Mutual on Greenvall's late payment claim. Maine Mutual's obligations pursuant to the late payment statute, 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2436(1) (1990), arise only after ascertainment of the loss is made. There is no evidence in the record of such ascertainment, either by agreement or arbitration award, and certainly the claim was disputed. Accordingly, the trial court did not err as a matter of law by granting a summary judgment to Maine Mutual on the late payment claim. See Baybutt Constr. Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 914, 917 (Me.1983). The entry is: Judgment vacated in part, affirmed in part. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.