Opinion ID: 784732
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Focus on Loss of Income

Text: 26 Prieto argues that his loss of income was irrelevant to his disability claim and Paul Revere's focus on his finances is thus evidence of bad faith. The policy, however, specifically provided that, to receive residual benefits there must be a reduction in monthly earnings. Prieto's suggestion that the policy was ambiguous or did not contain an income requirement is without merit, and Paul Revere's inquiry into loss of income was therefore reasonable. 27 Alternatively, Prieto contends that his loss of income was a result of his disability and Paul Revere's conclusion otherwise is evidence of bad faith. Although ultimately wrong, 4 Paul Revere's determination that Prieto's loss predated his injury was not unreasonable. Rather, it was based in part on Prieto's own statements that his practice had declined as patients relocated and the neighborhood changed. Paul Revere's focus on Prieto's loss of income and erroneous conclusion that Prieto's loss preceded his disability do not, therefore, suggest bad faith. 28