Summary
The Washington Supreme Court reviewed claims that Hartford acted in bad faith while handling the Ellweins’ underinsured motorist claim. The court upheld dismissal of claims concerning comparative-fault-based settlement offers and an alleged misrepresentation of policy limits, but held that Hartford acted in bad faith by using and manipulating an accident reconstruction expert it had originally hired to support the insureds’ liability position. The court reversed and remanded for summary judgment for the Ellweins on that claim and for a determination of damages.
Holdings
- Hartford did not act in bad faith as a matter of law because conflicting eyewitness evidence gave it a legitimate and reasonable basis to assert comparative fault and make settlement offers discounted for alleged comparative negligence.
- A UIM insurer violates its continuing duty of good faith by using or manipulating an expert it hired to support the insured's defense when the insurer could not have done so had it actually stood in the tortfeasor's shoes. Hartford acted in bad faith as a matter of law by misappropriating Cooper.
- The misrepresentation claim was properly dismissed on summary judgment because the Ellweins offered only an unsupported assertion and no evidence that the alleged statement caused them prejudice or prevented access to the policy's stated limits.
- The court declined to address whether a spoliation instruction was warranted because liability was no longer at issue and only damages remained.
Questions Presented
- Whether Hartford acted in bad faith by asserting comparative fault and basing its settlement offers on a 50 percent comparative-negligence assessment.
- Whether Hartford acted in bad faith by using and manipulating accident reconstruction expert William Cooper after initially retaining him to assist the insured's liability representation.
- Whether Hartford acted in bad faith by allegedly misrepresenting the underinsured-motorist policy limits to the Ellweins' attorney.
- Whether the destruction of Hartford's home-office claim file entitled the jury to receive a spoliation instruction.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (11)
- Keller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 81 Wn. App. 624, 633, 915 P.2d 1140 (1996)(followed)
- Stuart v. Am. States Ins. Co., 134 Wn.2d 814, 818, 953 P.2d 462 (1998)(followed)
- Indus. Indem. Co. of N.W. v. Kallevig, 114 Wn.2d 907, 917, 792 P.2d 520 (1990)(followed)
- Nat'l Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Dutton, 419 So. 2d 1357, 1362 (Ala. 1982)(persuasive)
- Kirk v. Mt. Airy Ins. Co., 134 Wn.2d 558, 560, 951 P.2d 1124 (1998)(followed)
- Tank v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 105 Wn.2d 381, 385-88, 715 P.2d 1133 (1986)(limited)
- Fisher v. Allstate Ins. Co., 136 Wn.2d 240, 249, 961 P.2d 350 (1998)(followed)
- Dayton v. Farmers Ins. Group, 124 Wn.2d 277, 281, 876 P.2d 896 (1994)(followed)
- Escalante v. Sentry Ins. Co., 49 Wn. App. 375, 385 n.7, 743 P.2d 832, 838 n.7 (1987)(disapproved)
- Trimble v. Wash. State Univ., 140 Wn.2d 88, 93, 993 P.2d 259 (2000)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…