Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court held that an additional insured who is not the policyholder may bring a bad-faith claim against the insurer for mishandling an underinsured motorist claim. The court upheld the superior court’s finding that Integon acted in bad faith and concluded that the statute of limitations did not bar Ennen’s claim because equitable estoppel applied. The court affirmed dismissal of Integon’s third-party claims against Ennen’s attorney on the alternative ground that the attorney was not a proximate cause of Ennen’s harm.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an additional insured who is not the named policyholder may bring a tort action for insurance bad faith against the insurer.
- Whether an adversarial relationship between an additional insured and the insurer's liability insured bars a bad-faith claim concerning UIM benefits.
- Whether the superior court clearly erred in finding that Integon acted in bad faith.
- Whether the statute of limitations barred Ennen's bad-faith claim.
- Whether Integon's third-party claim against Ennen's attorney could be sustained when the attorney's conduct was not a proximate cause of Ennen's damages.
- Whether Ennen was entitled to compensatory or nominal damages despite receiving prejudgment interest and delayed UIM benefits.
- Whether Integon was entitled to the attorney-fee award entered below.
Holdings
- An additional insured who is an intended third-party beneficiary of an insurance contract may bring a cause of action for bad faith against the insurer; the right is not limited to the named policyholder.
- An additional insured's adversarial relationship with the policyholder concerning a liability claim does not preclude a bad-faith claim concerning the additional insured's UIM benefits.
- The superior court's finding that Integon acted in bad faith was supported by the record and was not clearly erroneous.
- The statute-of-limitations challenge did not require reversal because Integon waived appellate review of the superior court's alternative ruling that equitable estoppel barred the limitations defense.
- The judgment in favor of Ennen's attorney was properly affirmed because the record supported the finding that Allen's negligence was not a proximate cause of Ennen's damages.
- Once bad faith and financial or emotional hardship from the delayed payment were established, Ennen was entitled to compensatory damages; at minimum, he was entitled to nominal damages. Prejudgment interest alone did not fully compensate him.
- The award of attorney's fees to Integon was vacated, and the matter was remanded for a new attorney-fee award to Ennen under Alaska Civil Rule 82.
Key quotations
“The policyholder of an insurance contract and intended third-party beneficiaries of an insurance contract, such as additional insureds, have a cause of action for bad faith; incidental third-party beneficiaries do not.” (284)
“Accordingly, we conclude that Ennen's adverse position to Shanigan on Ennen's liability claim does not preclude Integon from owing Ennen a duty of good faith on Ennen's UIM claim.” (287)
“Interest alone does not compensate Ennen for his financial hardship and related distress, and at a minimum he is entitled to nominal damages.” (291)
Factual background
Jacob Ennen was seriously injured while riding as a passenger in Gordon Shanigan's vehicle. Shanigan's Integon policy provided underinsured motorist coverage and defined an insured to include a permissive occupant, but its UIM provision unlawfully limited coverage in a manner inconsistent with Alaska statutes. Integon paid Ennen the liability limit but denied that he was entitled to additional UIM benefits, later paying those benefits with interest and fees after learning that its policy and claims handling violated Alaska law. Ennen presented evidence that the delayed payment caused financial and emotional hardship, including periods in which he lacked money for heating oil and food.
Procedural history
Ennen sued Integon and related entities for insurance bad faith arising from the delayed payment of underinsured motorist benefits. Integon filed a third-party complaint against Ennen's attorney, Craig Allen, which the superior court dismissed. After an eight-day bench trial, the superior court ruled that Ennen could not bring a bad-faith claim because he was an additional insured rather than the policyholder, while making alternative findings that Integon acted recklessly but caused no compensable damages. The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the no-cause-of-action ruling and the no-damages ruling, affirmed judgment for Allen on proximate-cause grounds, vacated the attorney-fee award, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for the superior court to calculate compensatory or nominal damages consistent with the opinion and to enter a new attorney-fee award for Ennen under Alaska Civil Rule 82. The judgment in favor of Allen is affirmed on the alternative ground that Allen's conduct was not a proximate cause of Ennen's damages.