Opinion

Bailey v. Farmers Insurance Co.

  • 137 P.3d 1260
  • 2006 OK CIV APP 85
  • 2006 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 52
  • 2006 WL 1892469
Court
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
Filed
Jun 6, 2006
Status
Published
Author
Rapp
On the bench
Gabbard, Rapp, Reif
Cited by
14 cases

“[T]he fact that Farmers previously paid an earlier, similar claim, without more, does not demonstrate bad faith or a breach of good faith. An insurer may withhold payment and litigate any claim as to which the insurer has a reasonable defense. An insurer’s failure to dispute a claim when it has the opportunity to do so, does not usually foreclose its right to dispute a later, similar claim, nor does such conduct constitute a breach of its duty of good faith. Insurers are free to make legitimate business decisions (and mistakes) regarding payment ... ”

How later courts described this case

  • “[T]he fact that Farmers previously paid an earlier, similar claim, without more, does not demonstrate bad faith or a breach of good faith. An insurer may withhold payment and litigate any claim as to which the insurer has a reasonable defense. An insurer’s failure to dispute a claim when it has the opportunity to do so, does not usually foreclose its right to dispute a later, similar claim, nor does such conduct constitute a breach of its duty of good faith. Insurers are free to make legitimate business decisions (and mistakes) regarding payment ... ”
  • “Insurers are free to make legitimate business decisions (and mistakes) regarding payment, as long as they act reasonably and deal fairly and in good faith with their insureds.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

RAPP, V.C.J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

T 1 I concur as to the Majority's holding on the breach of contract claim, but dissent relative to the Majority's holding on the bad faith claim. I would hold there is sufficient evidence upon which reasonable men could disagree concerning the bad faith claim and, therefore, this is an issue for the trier of fact and not subject to summary judgment. I do agree that an insurer has a right to dispute any claim without fear of bad faith when the insurer's dispute is made in good faith and upon solid evidence, and not upon the shifting sands foundation on which the refusal here was based. Accordingly, I would hold the trial court erred in its grant of summary Judgment in the bad faith matter.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.