holding that the duty of good faith “prevents an insurer from offering less than what its own investigation reveals to be the claim’s value” and that the insured’s bad faith claim was appropriately resolved by jury where the insurer “promised to make [certain] coverage available, made a small advance towards that end, and then refused to make further payment on the claim outside a settlement far below the dollar value placed on the claim based on its own investigation.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the duty of good faith “prevents an insurer from offering less than what its own investigation reveals to be the claim’s value” and that the insured’s bad faith claim was appropriately resolved by jury where the insurer “promised to make [certain] coverage available, made a small advance towards that end, and then refused to make further payment on the claim outside a settlement far below the dollar value placed on the claim based on its own investigation.”
- holding that after a reasonable investigation, an insurer must promptly settle a claim “for the value or within the range assigned to the claim as a result of its investigation.”
- noting “there [was] no indication” in claim file that insurer questioned causation of claimant’s injuries prior to pretrial conference in litigation related to claim
- “An insurer may not treat its own insured in the manner in which an insurer may treat third-party claimants to whom no duty of good faith and fair dealing is owed.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WINCHESTER, J.,
concurs in part; dissents in part:
4 1 I concur in the judgment for UM policy benefits, but I must dissent to the award for bad faith. The undisputed facts of this case do not support such an award.