1 / 30

BAD FAITH CLAIMS AGAINST SURETIES

BAD FAITH CLAIMS AGAINST SURETIES. Philadelphia Surety Claims Association January 15, 2014. Origins of the Bad Faith Claim:. The general common law duty of good faith and fair dealing was transformed into an affirmative claim sounding in tort. Philadelphia Surety Claims Association.

louis-cruz
Télécharger la présentation

BAD FAITH CLAIMS AGAINST SURETIES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BAD FAITH CLAIMS AGAINST SURETIES Philadelphia Surety Claims Association January 15, 2014

  2. Origins of the Bad Faith Claim: The general common law duty of good faith and fair dealing was transformed into an affirmative claim sounding in tort Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  3. Origins of the Bad Faith Claim: The new tort was based on the “special relationship” between the insured and its insurer, which arose out of the unequal bargaining power at policy inception and during coverage determination Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  4. Two Model Acts: • Unfair Trade Practices Act • Uniform Claims Settlement Practices Act Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  5. The Unfair Trade Practices Act National Association of Insurance Commissions adopt the “UnfairTrade Practices Act” establishing rules to regulate unfair trade practices in the insurance industry. The scope of the model act appears to cover suretyship. Those states that have adopted the act include suretyship within the scope of regulated insurance activities. Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  6. The Uniform Claims Settlement Practices Act National Association of Insurance Commissions later adopts the “Uniform Claims Settlement Practice Act” which was intended to define unfair claims practices with more exactitude. The model act specifically excludes suretyship. However, not all the states that have adopted the model act have adopted the language excluding suretyship. Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  7. Two Model Acts Both model acts say they do not create a private cause of action, but that language has not been consistently adopted. Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  8. What is bad faith? Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  9. What is bad faith? • Refusal to pay a claim without a reasonable basis • Frivolous and unfounded refusal to pay policy proceeds • Dishonest purpose or conscious wrongdoing • Unreasonable conduct which the surety knows to be unreasonable • Failure to investigate for the purpose of remaining ignorant

  10. What is not bad faith? • Mere negligence or bad judgment is not bad faith • Reasonable, but incorrect, interpretation of a policy or law is not bad faith • Inconsistent claims positions may not be bad faith if there is a reason for a differing position in the current matter • Delays due to reasonable investigations Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  11. What arguments work in favor of the claim? Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  12. Arguments In Favor: Sureties are just like insurance companies Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  13. Arguments In Favor: Suretyship is referenced in the regulatory scheme Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  14. Arguments In Favor: A bad faith tort claim is needed to keep sureties honest Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  15. Arguments In Favor: A “special relationship” exists between a surety and obligee Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  16. Arguments In Favor: Sureties have superior bargaining power vis-à-vis obligees Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  17. Which arguments work in favor of sureties? Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  18. Arguments Against: A surety’s liability should be no greater than that of its principal Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  19. Arguments Against: Surety is a credit accommodation, not insurance Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  20. Arguments Against: Insurance spreads risk, but in suretyship the loss remains concentrated with the principal Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  21. Arguments Against: The mere reference of suretyship in the regulatory framework is not enough Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  22. Arguments Against: Sureties have the right to “test the merits” of a claim Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  23. Arguments Against: A tort claim encourages the payment of meritless claims and the overpayment of questionable claims Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  24. Arguments Against: Obligees look first to the principal and then to the surety, rather than an insured who looks only to the insurer Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  25. Arguments Against: Because of the tripartite nature of the relationship, the surety must balance conflicting interests Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  26. Arguments Against: Sureties do not have superior bargaining power Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  27. Arguments Against: Obligees often are commercially sophisticated (with access to legal advice) Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  28. Arguments Against: Obligees can negotiate terms into the underlying contract that discourage delay by the surety (e.g. liquidated damages) Philadelphia Surety Claims Association

  29. QUESTIONS? Feel free to contact: Patrick Kingsley Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP (215) 564-8029 pkingsley@stradley.com

  30. Thanks

More Related