In Connecticut, Individuals and business entities that take out insurance coverages have an expectation which the Courts will enforce to have their policy claims administered fairly in accordance with the terms of the Policy and the reasonable expectations of the parties. As insurance contracts are adhesion contracts which are generally not subject to negotiation and drafted by the Insurance company issuing the coverage, any ambiguities are traditionally resolved in favor of the insured party. Individual consumers may rely on such policy coverages when they experience certain occurrences which trigger coverage such as an automobile accident where the party at fault, known as the tortfeasor, has no liability insurance coverage in effect. In such instances, it is common for the injured party not at fault for the accident to seek policy benefits from their own insurer in lieu of Damages which would otherwise be recoverable from the tortfeasor's own insurer if they had insurance coverage in effect.
The problem often becomes that when attempting to rely on uninsured motorist coverages and obtain fair compensation for the injuries and economic damages sustained a battle ensues, played out on the Court dockets of our State. Negotiation tactics and litigation strategies are employed by Defense Firms tasked with bringing resolution to such matters at the lowest possible amount, sometimes regardless of whether that number represents fair compensation or not.
Last year my Firm settled a motor vehicle underinsured motorist insurance claim lawsuit pending against Progressive Insurance Company after jury selection just before evidence was to begin for the full policy limit . What was disturbing is that the adjuster evidently required Defense counsel to Engage in incrementalism following her low ball offer several weeks or so prior to jury selection. The assumption seems to have been that at some point along the continuum, it was likely that their insured, my client, would take an offer below the policy rather than risk Trial. Defense counsel actually requested to meet with the Judge to see if the Court would pressure us to take 5k under the policy. We politely refused and on the spot the policy limit was offered. Good faith?
A common law bad faith claim derives from a duty of good faith and fair dealing implied in every contract or contractual relationship. Courts have characterized this claim as one which sounds in both tort and contract. Most Connecticut courts have Held that a bad faith claim is an independent tort claim separate from any claim for breach of contract. Grand Sheet Metal Prod. Co. v. Protection Mutual Insurance, 34 Conn. Supp. 46 (1977); United Technologies Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 118 F. Supp. 2d 181, 188 (D. Conn. 2000). While Connecticut courts have not clearly defined a single standard for a bad faith claim, they have nonetheless defined bad faith as follows:
Bad faith is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose. It contemplates a state of mind operating with furtive design or ill will. Buckman v. People Express Inc., 205 Conn. 166, 171 (1987); see also, PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede and Sons Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 305 (2004) (defending bad faith as requiring an "improper motive" or "dishonest purpose").Reckless indifference to the rights of others or egregious conduct is required. Bergen v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 1997 WL 809957, *15 (Dec. 31, 1997 Conn. Super.). Failure to give the insured's interest equal consideration with the insurer's own interests. United Services Auto. Association. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 350 F. Supp. 869, 871 (D. Conn. 1972).
With that said, given the inherent conflict in allowing one's own insurer to reasonably assess in an efficient manner the measure of policy benefits due, the role for Connecticut lawyers in such matters continues to be essential. In some instances where the positions adopted by the insurers are egregerious a claim for punitive damages may be appended to the underlying controversy at issue.
