![](https://www.sandbergphoenix.com/uploads/images/attorneys/Stephen_Carman_splash.png)
Sandberg Phoenix Insurance Team Attending the DRI Insurance Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability Seminar
Aaron French and Stephen Carman are attending this week’s DRI Insurance Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability Seminar in Nashville
We cover current issues, highlights and best practices exclusively on claims of bad faith and extra contractual damages.
Aaron French and Stephen Carman are attending this week’s DRI Insurance Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability Seminar in Nashville
The Regular Session of the 102nd General Assembly began on January 4 and will adjourn on May 12. In the first month of the Session, the General Assembly has introduced several bills which insurers may want to keep an eye on.
The Supreme Court of Hawai’i’s recent opinion restated two important points of Hawai’i bad faith law: (1) the insurer’s good faith claim handling duty begins with the first communication with the insured, even before the formal claim submission and (2) the insurer’s compliance with the terms of the insurance contract can be insufficient to avoid bad faith liability. Therefore, in order to defeat a bad faith claim under Hawai’i law, the insurer must at all times act in good faith before and after the claim submission. The court restated this duty when reversing a summary judgment for a health insurer. Although it complied with the terms of the insurance contract following receipt of the formal claim, it arguably misled its insured in discussions prior to the claim.
The insured Grecian Delight Foods had an explosion at its factory which caused it to submit a claim. When Grecian Delight and its insurer could not agree how to resolve the $26.76M claim, Grecian Delight filed suit against its insurer in state court for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, tortious interference, and bad faith. Grecian Delight additionally brought claims against the company hired to adjust the claim and its CEO for tortious interference with the insurance policy and the insured’s contract with a third-party. The insurer removed the case arguing that the adjusting company and its CEO were fraudulently joined, but the court disagreed and held that the insurer had not met its burden of establishing that the claims against the adjuster and its CEO “[had] no chance of success.” For that reason, the case was remanded back to state court.