SAN DIEGO — A California federal magistrate judge on July 18 recommended approving a settlement between a minor child and an auto insurer after determining that the proposed settlement in the breach of contract and bad faith suit is fair and in the best interests of the child (Tera Lisicky et al., v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co. et al., No. 18-1642, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120067).
DENVER — An insured’s bad faith claim against an auto insurer will proceed, a Colorado federal magistrate judge said July 10 after determining that the insured presented evidence in support of his contention that the insurer allegedly delayed payment of his claim for underinsured motorist benefits under the policy (James Roberts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 19-319, D. Colo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114775).
TULSA, Okla. — An insured seeking coverage for extended business income loss sufficiently stated a claim for bad faith against its insurer, an Oklahoma federal judge said July 17 in denying the insurer’s motion to dismiss the bad faith claim and the insured’s request for punitive damages (Tikk-A-Wok Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, No. 18-570, N.D. Okla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118914).
LAS VEGAS — Dismissal of a bad faith claim against an insurer and its parent company is necessary because an insured failed to allege that the insurer declined to compensate him for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident with an underinsured motorist, a federal judge in Nevada ruled July 11 (Stephen C. Schmid v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, et al., No. 18-2020, D. Nev., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116028).
TUCSON, Ariz. — An Arizona federal judge on July 12 denied an insurance agent’s motion to bifurcate a breach of contract claim from a bad faith claim in a dispute over coverage for an auto accident after determining that bifurcation is not warranted (Wilshire Insurance Co. v. Patrick Yager, et al., No. 16-192, D. Ariz., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116258).
OKLAHOMA CITY — An insurer is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of coverage and fails to establish that any policy exclusions preclude coverage for an underlying construction defects case, an Oklahoma federal judge ruled July 12, also denying summary judgment to the insurer on an insured’s bad faith counterclaim (Country MutualInsuranceCo. v. AAA Construction LLC, No. 17-486, W.D. Okla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115935).
NEW ORLEANS — In an unpublished per curiam opinion, a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 9 ruled that a federal district court did not err in dismissing a third-party claimant’s insurance bad faith lawsuit against an insurer because the claimant was not an insured under a professional liability policy (Team Contractors LLC v. Waypoint Nola LLC v. Catlin Insurance Co. Inc., No. 18-30419, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20317).
CLEVELAND — An insured homeowner does not have standing to bring breach of contract and bad faith claims against an insurer following the insurer’s denial of a claim for water damage because the insured filed for bankruptcy before filing suit against the insurer, an Ohio federal judge said July 9 (Richard L. Kolesar v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-35, N.D. Ohio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113662).
JACKSON, Miss. — A federal judge in Mississippi on July 3 ordered an insured to show cause for failing to file responsive pleadings to a motion to dismiss in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit arising out of a fire damage claim made under a homeowners policy (Tramon Colenburg v. Amica General Agency LLC, et al., No. 19-24, S.D. Miss., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111316).
ROCKVILLE, Conn. — A Connecticut judge on May 31 denied a homeowners insurer’s motion to strike bad faith and unfair settlement practices claims after determining that the insureds, who are seeking coverage for the deterioration of their home’s foundation walls, stated sufficient facts in support of the claims (Rhonda Prucker, et al. v. American Economy Insurance Co., et al., No. CV186013630S, Conn. Super., Tolland Jud. Dist., 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1530).
AUSTIN, Texas — A divided Texas Supreme Court on June 28 held that an insurer’s payment of an appraisal award bars an insured’s breach of contract claim, so far as it is premised on the insured’s claims that the insurer failed to pay the amount necessary on the covered loss, and that payment of the appraisal award also bars the insured’s claims for common-law and statutory bad faith “to the extent the only actual damages sought are lost policy benefits" (Oscar Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 17-1048, Texas Sup., 2019, 2019 Tex. LEXIS 678).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A primary insurer did not act in bad faith in failing to settle an underlying personal injury suit filed against an insured following an auto accident because the evidence shows that the primary insurer did not act with gross disregard of an excess insurer’s interests when it concluded that the excess policy would not be implicated by the underlying personal injury suit, a New York federal judge ruled June 24 (Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., No. 14-858, E.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105192).
TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida in July 3 ruled that although plaintiffs in an insurance bad faith lawsuit stemming from an automobile accident have sufficiently shown that all conditions precedent “have occurred or been exhausted,” they have failed to properly plead the substantive element of their bad faith claim (Jacob D. Frantz, et al. v. Century-National Insurance Co., No. 19-969, M.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111021).
DENVER — A Colorado federal judge on July 3 granted an auto insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on an insured’s bad faith claims after determining that the insured failed to provide any support showing that the insurer acted unreasonably in its handling of an underinsured motorist claim (Jodi Stemple v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 17-2381, D. Col., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110977).
FORT MYERS, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on June 30 ruled that dismissal of a bad faith claim against an automobile insurance provider in an uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) dispute is warranted because the district court has not yet determined whether insureds are entitled to UM coverage (Robert Harry Diggory IV, et al. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, No. 19-367, M.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109472).
GULFPORT, Miss. — A Mississippi federal judge on June 28 granted an auto insurer’s motion for summary judgment on a bad faith claim after determining that the insurer’s delay in paying an insured’s uninsured motorist claim and medical payments claim was reasonable based on the length of the insured’s medical treatment and the insured’s demand for payment under the policy (Sarah D. Soares et al., v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., No. 18-276, S.D. Miss., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108378).
TULSA, Okla. — A bad faith claim alleged against a property insurer will proceed, an Oklahoma federal judge said June 27, after determining that the insured’s allegations are sufficient to support the claim (Surfside Japanese Auto Parts & Service v. Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Co., No. 18-487, N.D. Okla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107464).
SAN ANTONIO — A federal judge in Texas on June 5 issued an order abating an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit, pending the outcome of one or more cases pending in the Texas Supreme Court dealing with the same issues, ruling that doing so will allow the court to “apply the highest court of the state’s precedent to state law” (Kitty Salinas v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 17-1001, W.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104677).
FRANKFORT, Ky. — A trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of an insurer on a third-party bad faith claim because questions of fact existed regarding whether coverage was owed to the insured and whether the insured was liable for the auto accident that prompted the third-party plaintiff to file suit against the insurer, the Kentucky Court of Appeals said June 21 (Fred Messer v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., No. 2017-CA-293, Ky. App., 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 107).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 27 affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling that a professional liability insurer has no duty to indemnify an insured for a $1.3 million default judgment entered in favor of a condominium association in an underlying construction defects lawsuit (Essex Insurance Company v. Blue Moon Lofts Condominium Association, et al., Nos. 18-3443 and 18-3530, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19174).