The Devil is in the Details: Minor Variation by Insurer Voids Settlement and Threatens Bad Faith Exposure
A recent ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals provides yet another cautionary tale for insurers seeking to avoid bad faith claims.
We cover current issues, highlights and best practices exclusively on claims of bad faith and extra contractual damages.
A recent ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals provides yet another cautionary tale for insurers seeking to avoid bad faith claims.
Suit sought recovery for STD infection contracted in insured’s auto.
After almost 20 years of reading judicial opinions from around the country discussing insurance bad faith, a common thread seems to be mentioned--communication (or lack of) by the insurance company with its insureds.
In Garrison Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. McWhirt, WD84612, -- S.W.3d -- (Mo. App. W.D. Aug. 2, 2022), the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, recently interpreted 2018 amendments to Missouri’s interpleader statute, R.S.Mo. § 507.060.
On June 29, 2021, Governor Parson signed into law Missouri HB 345, which amends R.S.Mo. § 537.065 (permitting contracts to limit recovery to specified assets or insurance policies) and R.S.Mo. § 435.415 (Missouri’s Uniform Arbitration Act). This legislation is an effort to reform insurance “bad faith” litigation in Missouri, supplement legislation passed in 2017, and address recent tactics to avoid the statutory protections granted to insurers in 2017.