holding that an insurer’s failure to pay a valid claim is a failure to perform under the insurance contract that can support a bad faith claim if the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for its failure to pay
How later courts described this case
- holding that an insurer’s failure to pay a valid claim is a failure to perform under the insurance contract that can support a bad faith claim if the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for its failure to pay
- permitting injured employee to bring common law tort action against carrier for bad faith processing of compensation claim since that is not a risk contemplated by the workers’ compensation statute
- holding that "covered employee stands in the same position as an insured in a private insurance contract"
- recognizing a breach-of-duty action by an employee against a workers’ compensation carrier even though the carrier issued its policy to the employer
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1277 ERICKSON, Justice,
dissenting:
In my view, Colorado’s Workmen’s Compensation Act precludes Savio’s tort claim against Travelers in this case.
The Colorado Workmen’s Compensation Act (the Act) was intended by the General Assembly to provide an exclusive remedy for workers to recover an award for an industrial injury. The Act defines and limits the scope and amount of recovery available to injured workers. Insurers necessarily rely on the statutory scheme and agree to provide coverage to employers for the liability outlined in the Act.
In my view, we should not expand liability to include employee claims of insurer misconduct when the employee’s “underlying injury” is covered by the Act and the employee has statutory remedies available under the Act to ensure prompt payment of a claim. §§ 8-53-103, -116, 3 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). If an expansion of liability is to occur, it should be made by the General Assembly, as the legislature in California did, and not by judicial fiat. See Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 7 Cal.3d 616 , 498 P.2d 1063 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 815 (1972). A majority of states having workmen’s compensation statutes (with “exclusivity” provisions like Colorado’s) do not allow common-law tort claims for bad faith or negligent insurer delays in payment of employee claims covered by the compensation statute. Robertson v. Travelers Insurance Co., 95 Ill.2d 441 , 69 Ill.Dec. 954 , 448 N.E.2d 866 (1983); 2A A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 68.34(c) (1983).
If a judicial remedy is to be created, I believe that the standard of care owed by insurers should be one of reasonable care (a negligence standard). Savio’s “first-party” claim is not sufficiently distinguishable from the “third-party” claim in Farmers Group, Inc. v. Trimble, 691 P.2d 1138 (Colo.1984), to justify application of the significantly different standard of care formulated by the court here.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the district court’s dismissal of Savio’s claim.