Opinion ID: 2651525
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: February-May 30, 2006 (~4 months)

Text: State Farm argues it had a legitimate or arguable basis for delay from February through May 30, 2006 because it was attempting to determine whether Smith, the accident’s tortfeasor, was insured. We agree that State Farm was conducting a prompt and adequate investigation during this time period. James promptly notified State Farm of the accident in early February, and State Farm immediately began communicating with James about her collision and medical payments coverage. At the same time, State Farm was investigating whether Smith or the owner of the vehicle he was driving at the time of the accident had insurance coverage. If they had adequate insurance coverage, James’s UM coverage would not apply. During this period of time, State Farm’s claim representative attempted to reach Progressive, Smith’s former insurance company, multiple times, and left numerous voicemail messages for a Progressive contact who never returned State Farm’s calls. On May 30, 2006, State Farm confirmed that Progressive had denied coverage, triggering State Farm’s UM coverage for accident-related injuries. The record thus shows that State Farm had a legitimate basis for failing to tender payment from February through May 30, 2006 as it was actively investigating whether James was covered by her policy’s UM benefits.