Opinion ID: 66322
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach of Duty of Good Faith (Aikens’ Issue 3)

Text: The Aikens seem to also argue that the Appellees breached their duty of good faith to investigate the Aikens’ claims with reasonable diligence. The Appellees owed no such duty to the Aikens. The Mississippi Supreme Court has explained that adjusters employed by an insurer, who were not parties to the agreement for insurance, are not subject to an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing to the insured. . . . [Adjusters who were] not parties to the insurance contract between [the insured] and their insurer, [are] not subject to an implied duty of good faith and fair 6 No. 08-60154 dealing with [the insured]. [Adjusters’] duty was to their principal, not to [insured]. Bass v. Cal. Life Ins. Co., 581 So. 2d 1087, 1090 (Miss. 1991). As is stated above and explained by Gallagher, Jordan’s actions as an engineer are similar to those of an adjuster. Like an adjuster, Jordan was not a party to the insurance contract between USAA and the Aikens; therefore Jordan owed no fiduciary duty nor a duty to act in good faith to the Aikens. Furthermore, the Aikens failed to demonstrate that they relied on reports generated by Rimkus, because they hired an expert to assess the cause of damages after Chapa came to inspect the property. We AFFIRM with respect to this claim.