Soha & Lang, P.S. Shareholder Paul Rosner will be speaking about insurance bad faith as part of a panel on reputational management at the Puget Sound Adjuster Association’s Spring Symposium on April 6th in Seattle. For more information, go to the PSAA website or click on the link below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PbDj39us_TK3X41mJxW6aklXt1VQtqNL/view
In Keodalah v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 75731-8-1 (Mar. 26, 2018), the Washington Court of Appeals held that an insurance adjuster that handles claims may be held individually liable for bad faith and violation of the CPA. The case involved allegations of bad faith and CPA against an Allstate insurance adjuster in an automobile claim.
The insured was involved in a fatal auto accident with a motorcycle, and made a UIM policy limits demand of $25,000. Allstate assessed the claim and found the insured was 70% at fault, and offered $1,600 to settle the claim. The adjuster was designated as Allstate’s 30(b)(6) witness and claimed that the insured had run the stop sign and been on his cell phone. The adjuster later admitted that was not the case. Allstate then tried to settle the claim for $15,000. The insured declined. At trial, the jury found zero liability on behalf of the insured and awarded him $108,868 for injuries, lost wages and medical expenses. The insured then brought IFCA, bad faith and CPA claims against both Allstate and the adjuster.
The trial court dismissed the individual claims. The Court of Appeals, however, found that the Washington bad faith regulations and CPA both apply to individual adjusters, even if they are working within the scope of their employment. The court concluded: “We hold that an individual employee insurance adjuster can be liable for bad faith and a violation of the CPA”.
If you have any questions regarding this case, please do not hesitate to contact Soha & Lang, P.S.
Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Soha and Lang, P.S. or its clients.
In Ohio Security Ins. Co. v. Axis Ins. Co., No. 94677-9, the Washington Supreme Court, on a certified question from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, confirms that Washington law establishes that service through the Washington State Insurance Commissioner is the exclusive means of service for authorized foreign insures in Washington. The Court reaches this conclusion based on the plain language, and legislative intent, of RCW 4.28.080(7)(a) and RCW 48.05.200(1).
If you have any questions regarding this case, please do not hesitate to contact Soha & Lang, P.S.
Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed in in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Soha and Lang, P.S. or its clients
In Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Zaycon Foods LLC, 2018 WL 847247 (E.D. Wash. February 13, 2018) (ECF 54), the U.S. District Court ruled that a liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify where neither the underlying complaint nor extrinsic facts described a claim for damages that could be covered under the policy.
In the underlying suit, Zaycon was sued by its former CEO for alleged violations of state and federal securities laws, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract relating to the former CEO’s ouster as CEO. Cincinnati agreed to defend Zaycon under a reservation of rights.
Represented by Gary Sparling and Sarah Davenport of Soha & Lang, P.S., Cincinnati filed an action for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration that the claims in the underlying suit did not fall within the coverages provided in Cincinnati’s policies issued to Zaycon. In response to Cincinnati’s summary judgment motion, Zaycon argued that certain allegations in the underlying complaint could be interpreted to describe defamation. The Cincinnati policies provided coverage for, among other things, “personal and advertising injury” arising out of “[o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services.” Zaycon argued that although the underlying suit did not formally state a cause of action for defamation, the allegations in the complaint and extrinsic facts nevertheless demonstrated that the underlying suit included claims for false statements that allegedly damaged the former CEO’s reputation.
The court disagreed, and held that the underlying complaint did not allege or imply that the alleged false statements by Zaycon’s members had damaged the former CEO’s reputation, nor did the complaint seek damages for such harm. The court further held that the extrinsic facts failed to demonstrate that Zaycon faced potential liability for defamation in the underlying suit, when the complaint did not allege any claim for such damages. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment and ruled that Cincinnati had no duty to defend or indemnify, and that Cincinnati could immediately withdraw from any further defense in the underlying suit.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Soha and Lang, P.S. or its clients.