Opinion ID: 1460197
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Request for Documentation

Text: Hammonds asserts that Hartford's requests for documentation and the resulting delays in payment were done in bad faith in order to leverage a superior bargaining position in the relationship. Hammonds suggests that the requests for documentation, along with all other alleged bad faith actions, were part of an extensive, nefarious scheme revolving around the 1998 large loss initiative. [9] Hammonds argues that by requesting documentation and delaying payments when documentation was not received, Hartford acted in bad faith because Hartford admitted it had no right to require documentation. Hartford App. 131. However, the Champion tort inquiry does not concern itself with a dispute over what rights Hartford had under the parties' contractual agreements. This question, which is a matter of contract interpretation  determining the rights and obligations arising from the contract  presents a question of law, rather than a question of fact. Simeone v. First Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 971 F.2d 103, 106 (8th Cir.1992). On this question of law, we will assume that the parties agreed to what Hammonds said they agreed to, namely, that Hartford would continue to pay the amount agreed upon in the 1993 Agreement directly to Hammonds and that there was no requirement that Hammonds provide documentation that he was using the money for attendant care. [10] Thus, the focus of our investigation is whether Hartford acted in bad faith by delaying the transmittal of two payments in retaliation for Hammonds failure to provide documentation, despite the fact that he was not required to provide documentation. Even assuming that Hammonds could successfully prove this tort to a jury's satisfaction, his claim still suffers a fatal defect. As with any other tort, in addition to proving that Hartford acted in bad faith, Hammonds also must prove that he suffered a compensable loss as a result of the behavior. McDowell, 734 N.W.2d at 19. McDowell, like Hammonds, entered into a settlement agreement with an insurance company, which agreement required that the company pay for necessary medical bills. She sued the insurer for failure to pay three bills in a timely fashion. Id. The South Dakota Supreme Court noted that McDowell could not prove loss from the delays, as she ma[de] no claim that during the time these three bills were unpaid her medical providers refused to continue treating her. Id. at 21. Like McDowell, Hammonds has failed to allege or show that he suffered any compensable loss of services or attendant care as a result of the delays in payment. Indeed, he admitted, in a sworn deposition, that at the time of the filing of this action, all monies owed to him under the 1993 Agreement and the later agreement to pay him directly had been paid. Hartford App. 33-34. The record only reflects that a certain number of days passed between the time Hammonds was to receive payment and the time he actually did receive the payment. There is no proof that Hammonds suffered any loss as a result of the delay. Thus, the grant of summary judgment on this issue was proper. McDowell, 734 N.W.2d at 21.