Court Opinion

ID: 9535377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:48:33.916265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:13.796306
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
NAKAYAMA, J.
While I fully agree with the reasoning of the majority regarding GEICO’s liability for UIM benefits, I write separately out of concern for the message sent to the primary insurer by the result in this case. As we recently reaffirmed, “ ‘there is a legal duty, implied in a first- and third-party insurance contract, that the insurer must act in good faith in dealing with its insured[.]’” Delmonte v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 90 Hawai'i 39, 54 n. 13, 975 P.2d 1159, 1174 n. 13 (1999) (quoting Best Place, Inc. v. Penn America Ins. Co., 82 Hawai'i 120, 132, 920 P.2d 334, 346 (1996)).
In the instant case, there is no allegation that State Farm acted in bad faith in making an offer of settlement less than the policy amount.1 Nevertheless, I have a concern regarding the motivation behind offering $33,000, rather than $35,000, in light of the *315extent of the stated injuries to Mrs. Taylor. The result in this case will increase the incentive to an injured party to accept a settlement offer less than the policy limits of the primary insurance. The injured party may then pursue his or her UIM claim without the expense and delay of litigation. However, primary insurers should not take this as carte blanche to offer lower settlements without good faith justification. We are mindful, as all insurers must also be, that the principles of good faith and fair dealing continue to apply.

. State Farm is not a party in this case.