holding that determining whether insurer had reasonable basis for denying or delaying payment of claim “requires an objective determination of whether a reasonable insurer under similar circumstances would have delayed or denied the claimant’s benefits”
How later courts described this case
- holding that determining whether insurer had reasonable basis for denying or delaying payment of claim “requires an objective determination of whether a reasonable insurer under similar circumstances would have delayed or denied the claimant’s benefits”
- recognizing workers = compensation insurance carrier owes employee duty of good faith and fair dealing in processing compensation claims
- holding that the exclusivity provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act did not create a bar to a claim for the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing
- stating that carriers "will not be subject to liability for an erroneous denial of a claim” unless there was no reasonable basis for denial
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ruttiger, 55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 912 (2012)
748 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. 1998) overruled on other grounds by Texas Mut. Ins. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430
The opinion
WALLACE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would not foreclose a suit for bad faith against a workers’ compensation insurer.
However, in this case, the insurers resorted to the Industrial Accident Board to resolve a legal dispute, i.e., which of the insurers were primarily liable for Aranda’s compensation. This is the procedure mandated by the Workers’ Compensation Act, thus, they should not be penalized for following the law.
GONZALEZ, J., joins in this dissent.