Reasonable Conduct Barred Arizona Bad Faith Claim

Post 128 of 228

Summary: Boesel brought action against State Farm claiming bad faith when the insurer denied his claim for coverage. The District Court granted summary judgment finding Boesel failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Boesel v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.

Boesel, a State Farm insured, claimed losses for the theft of two jade carvings. The insurance policy had both a concealment or misrepresentation exclusion and a cooperation requirement. If Boesel intentionally concealed or misrepresented a material fact, before or after a loss, the policy was void. Additionally, the policy required Boesel to cooperate with State Farm in investigating the claimed loss. The record demonstrated that Boesel concealed a report showing the carvings were worth substantially less than originally indicated. In addition, he failed to provide State Farm with necessary information during the course of its investigation.

In Arizona, to establish a breach of the duty of good faith two things must be shown: (1) the insurer acted unreasonably in investigating, evaluation, or processing of the claim, and (2) the insurer either knew or was conscious of the fact that it acted unreasonably. So long as there is a legitimate question of coverage, the denial of a claim, without more, does not give rise to a bad faith claim. Here, Boesel’s violation of two insurance policy provisions demonstrated a legitimate question of coverage. Since Boesel failed to allege any other unreasonable conduct, summary judgment was properly granted.

By Anthony L. Martin & Cody Hagan

Martin, A

, , , , , , , , , ,

); ?>

MISSOURI

St. Louis  |  Clayton  |   Kansas City

ILLINOIS

Alton  |  Carbondale  |  Edwardsville  |  O'Fallon

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation.
This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. © 2014 Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Menu