Quatloos! > Investment
Fraud > Financial
Planning > Insurance
Company Bad Faith
A recurring problem in Risk Management is the insurance
company that will not pay on its claims, or immediately leaps for
the first loophole to avoid policy coverage. In other words, what
good is your insurance coverage if it doesn't pay?
According to Mr. Mike Johnston, a trial lawyer from Oklahoma who practices
in the area of insurer's bad faith, the following constitute the "Top
40" types of acts of bad faith by insurance companies:
The Bad Faith Top 40
Some or all of the following things have been found (in some states)
to constitute "bad faith" or "unfair dealing" by an insurance company from
whom you purchased a policy. Obviously, the more of these that have occurred
in your case, the better your legal case will be. Some states have
Unfair Settlement Practices Acts that may also apply.
From the reported cases we can discern some acts that might prove sanctionable. Because
creative insurers continue to create methods of unfair dealing, this listing
can never be all-inclusive.
-
Failure to promptly investigate a claim.
-
Failure to properly, thoroughly and reasonably investigate
a claim as to liability and damages, if any.
-
Failure to fairly and reasonably evaluate facts of liability.
-
Failure to offer settlement within a reasonable time after
investigation and evaluation in favor of its insured, if such
occurs.
-
Requiring an insured to pursue a claim against any other
party before offering settlement, where settlement is required.
-
Delay in payment to await settlement with a third-party
insurer.
-
Requiring an insured to exhaust the policy limits of a
third-party insurer prior to offering settlement in an uninsured
motorist claim.
-
Failure to fairly and reasonably evaluate damages.
-
Delaying a denial which causes emotional distress.
-
Attempt to condition payment of an undisputed portion
of a claim on the favorable settlement of a separate, disputed
portion.
-
Unreasonably refusing to waive subrogation so that the
claimant could settle with the tortfeasor in uninsured motorist
cases.
-
Deception.
-
Intentional or reckless misreading or misconstruing of
claims file documents or of policy provisions.
-
Non-disclosure of information.
-
Failure to inform insured of additional benefits due under
the policy.
-
Impeding insured by imposing burdensome documentation
demands not required by the facts or the policy.
-
Interference with recovery of that portion of the loss
which is uninsured.
-
Fraudulent, intrusive or harassing investigative methods.
-
Attempts to "take something off the top."
-
Unwarranted disputes concerning value of loss.
-
Unfounded accusations of arson.
-
Wrongful threats of non-payment.
-
Creating issues simply to compromise the duty to pay the
full amount.
-
Designing a scheme to not pay insureds rightful benefits.
-
Failure to comply with industry standards.
-
Asserting factual basis or legal principle not originally
involved in the evaluation as the basis for the denial or
for the delay.
-
Concealment of facts.
-
Use of oppression.
-
Treating insureds who hire attorneys as the insurance
company's adversaries.
-
Failure to convey settlement demands of adversary in liability
cases.
-
Attempts to obtain contribution from the insured.
-
Altering or changing coverage without consent of insured.
-
Biased investigation.
-
Failure to reasonably construe the law.
-
Dual representation by the same claims person handling
conflicting claims.
-
Violating the normal procedures called for in the claims
manuals.
-
Attempting to shift burden of investigation onto lawyer
for insured.
-
Suing insured to recover amounts paid and taking affirmative
steps to harm insured.
-
Canceling insured's policies where insured not at fault.
-
Failure to settle a third party's claims
against an insured within the policy limits (if possible)
thereby exposing the insured to "excess" liability