Opinion ID: 2626668
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interference with Contractual Benefits

Text: Smith contends that the partial C & R should be set aside because he is not getting the benefit of his bargain. Relying on Kaiser v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, [23] he argues that CSK Auto violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by taking direct action to deprive him of the benefit of the partial C & R. His argument is based on the current lack of medical treatment for his back. An implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing exists in all contracts; it requires that each party refrain from doing anything that would injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the contract. [24] But medical care was not one of the benefits that Smith received from the partial C & R; in fact, Smith's medical care was not affected by the partial C & R at all. Smith preserved his right to get medical and other benefits not specifically waived in the partial C & R, and CSK Auto reserved the right to controvert future medical care. [25] Both the Board and the Commission correctly interpreted the partial C & R to apply only to vocational reemployment and permanent total disability benefits.