posted by Law Help on Oct 31
When an insurance company fails to honor their obligations and responsibilities in your insurance contract, you may have a case against the insurance company for acting in “bad faith.” It is important to note that bad faith cases arise from disputes between you and your own insurance company it is not considered bad faith if another insurance company is refusing to pay money to you since there is no contract between you and the other person’s insurance company.
Insurance companies have years of legal experience litigating the terms of their contracts contracts written by skilled lawyers which have been carefully upgraded as new decisions are handed down by appellate court. Coverage attorneys incorporate new case law into policies and regularly rewrite their contract. Terms that may appear to a consumer to be simple and straightforward may have their origin in a legal opinion and may have been given a special interpretation that consumers are not familiar with. Insurance carriers have the upper hand in drafting policies and selecting the language they find most advantageous for making a profit, since these companies make it their business to know how standard terms have been defined by judges,
In Florida, the essence of a bad faith insurance suit is that the insurer breached its duty to its insured by failing to properly or promptly defend the claim (which may encompass its failure to make a good faith offer of settlement within the policy limits). Kelly v. Williams, 411 So.2d 902 (1982). Bad faith can encompass all kinds of insurance, from health and dental to automobile and homeowners. Other examples may include failure to provide for a defense as required in the event you are sued, or failure to follow contractual procedures in the event of a dispute as to the amount of compensation to be provided to you under your own coverage after an accident.
Interpreting Insurance Contracts
Insurance contracts are interpreted by judges and courts to implement only the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured. Any personal, or subjective, expectation of a policyholder which cannot be reasonably supported by the language of the contract is unenforceable. It matters not what the policyholder truly and honestly believes in his or her own mind – that is considered subjective opinion and is never in issue in a court of law.
Insurance law states that should there be an ambiguity or uncertainty in a policy, that issue would be resolved in favor of the policyholder and against the insurer. In the absence of a misrepresentation regarding coverage or exclusions, if the language of the policy is clear and explicit, the clear meaning will be enforced.
An objective person’s interpretation of the meanings and terms are the real test of a policy. So, when reading an insurance policy, the words selected by the insurance company are to be interpreted by judges according to their plain meaning. A plain meaning is one which an ordinary person would attach to such words, not the meaning which might be understood by an insurance company executive or an attorney.
Exclusions and limitations in a policy must be clearly written in unmistakable language because they often result in denying coverage when there is a loss. It is for this reason that exclusions and limitations are always narrowly defined. If there is more than one meaning to be given to an exclusion or a limitation, the narrowest interpretation will be adopted by the court. Any exclusionary clause that is not clearly defined will be interpreted in the interests of the insured.
Duty to Deal Fairly
In bad faith cases, a jury is always asked whether under the facts the carrier acted reasonably. Bad faith may consist of denying benefits, delaying payments and paying less than what is owed. An insurance company is obligated to thoroughly and promptly investigate all claims and must inquire into all the possible issues that might support an insured’s claim. This obligation is not terminated simply because the insured files a lawsuit against the company. Where an insurer makes a belated offer of settlement, a cause of action for bad faith does not correct or set aside the previous wrongful conduct. Any payments to the insured only reduce the amount of the insurance company’s final liability as it may be determined by a jury.
Every insurance contract contains an unwritten or implied term referred to as the covenant or promise of good faith and fair dealing. This is a promise imposed by law upon an insurance company to always act fairly towards its insureds in handling their claims. Judges will read the policy as if it had this implied promise, whether it is there or not. Carriers must meet the reasonable expectations of the policyholder and an insurer must always give as much consideration to the financial interests of its insureds as it does to its own financial interests.
When a person buys an insurance policy, the very risks that are insured against make it clear that if a claim is not satisfied the policyholder will suffer financial loss and emotional distress. Carriers know that policyholders will be vulnerable to their oppressive tactics, and insurance companies are presumed to know that a denial of benefits will very well result in emotional distress to their insureds.
In a bad faith action an insurance company’s business practices or common course of conduct is routinely admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident in the manner in which it dealt with its insured. It is not necessary to show that the insurer intended to cause harm in a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The policyholder need only show that the insurer failed to honor the agreement and had no cause not to pay what was due under the contract.
Damages In Bad Faith Cases
Where a policyholder successfully shows that an insurer breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the insured can recover all damages caused by the breach. This includes all consequential losses, loss of use of the insurance proceeds, general damages and attorneys’ fees. In cases of extreme misconduct they even may be able to receive punitive damages.
By: Jess Gulistan
About the Author:
Insurance companies have years of legal experience litigating the terms of their contracts contracts written by skilled lawyers which have been carefully upgraded as new decisions are handed down by appellate court. Coverage attorneys incorporate new case law into policies and regularly rewrite their contract. Terms that may appear to a consumer to be simple and straightforward may have their origin in a legal opinion and may have been given a special interpretation that consumers are not familiar with. Insurance carriers have the upper hand in drafting policies and selecting the language they find most advantageous for making a profit, since these companies make it their business to know how standard terms have been defined by judges,
In Florida, the essence of a bad faith insurance suit is that the insurer breached its duty to its insured by failing to properly or promptly defend the claim (which may encompass its failure to make a good faith offer of settlement within the policy limits). Kelly v. Williams, 411 So.2d 902 (1982). Bad faith can encompass all kinds of insurance, from health and dental to automobile and homeowners. Other examples may include failure to provide for a defense as required in the event you are sued, or failure to follow contractual procedures in the event of a dispute as to the amount of compensation to be provided to you under your own coverage after an accident.
Interpreting Insurance Contracts
Insurance contracts are interpreted by judges and courts to implement only the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured. Any personal, or subjective, expectation of a policyholder which cannot be reasonably supported by the language of the contract is unenforceable. It matters not what the policyholder truly and honestly believes in his or her own mind – that is considered subjective opinion and is never in issue in a court of law.
Insurance law states that should there be an ambiguity or uncertainty in a policy, that issue would be resolved in favor of the policyholder and against the insurer. In the absence of a misrepresentation regarding coverage or exclusions, if the language of the policy is clear and explicit, the clear meaning will be enforced.
An objective person’s interpretation of the meanings and terms are the real test of a policy. So, when reading an insurance policy, the words selected by the insurance company are to be interpreted by judges according to their plain meaning. A plain meaning is one which an ordinary person would attach to such words, not the meaning which might be understood by an insurance company executive or an attorney.
Exclusions and limitations in a policy must be clearly written in unmistakable language because they often result in denying coverage when there is a loss. It is for this reason that exclusions and limitations are always narrowly defined. If there is more than one meaning to be given to an exclusion or a limitation, the narrowest interpretation will be adopted by the court. Any exclusionary clause that is not clearly defined will be interpreted in the interests of the insured.
Duty to Deal Fairly
In bad faith cases, a jury is always asked whether under the facts the carrier acted reasonably. Bad faith may consist of denying benefits, delaying payments and paying less than what is owed. An insurance company is obligated to thoroughly and promptly investigate all claims and must inquire into all the possible issues that might support an insured’s claim. This obligation is not terminated simply because the insured files a lawsuit against the company. Where an insurer makes a belated offer of settlement, a cause of action for bad faith does not correct or set aside the previous wrongful conduct. Any payments to the insured only reduce the amount of the insurance company’s final liability as it may be determined by a jury.
Every insurance contract contains an unwritten or implied term referred to as the covenant or promise of good faith and fair dealing. This is a promise imposed by law upon an insurance company to always act fairly towards its insureds in handling their claims. Judges will read the policy as if it had this implied promise, whether it is there or not. Carriers must meet the reasonable expectations of the policyholder and an insurer must always give as much consideration to the financial interests of its insureds as it does to its own financial interests.
When a person buys an insurance policy, the very risks that are insured against make it clear that if a claim is not satisfied the policyholder will suffer financial loss and emotional distress. Carriers know that policyholders will be vulnerable to their oppressive tactics, and insurance companies are presumed to know that a denial of benefits will very well result in emotional distress to their insureds.
In a bad faith action an insurance company’s business practices or common course of conduct is routinely admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident in the manner in which it dealt with its insured. It is not necessary to show that the insurer intended to cause harm in a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The policyholder need only show that the insurer failed to honor the agreement and had no cause not to pay what was due under the contract.
Damages In Bad Faith Cases
Where a policyholder successfully shows that an insurer breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the insured can recover all damages caused by the breach. This includes all consequential losses, loss of use of the insurance proceeds, general damages and attorneys’ fees. In cases of extreme misconduct they even may be able to receive punitive damages.
By: Jess Gulistan
About the Author:
