Miller v. Hartford Life Insurance Co.
Year 2010
Court Supreme Court of Hawaii
Case Number SCCQ-11-0000329
Issue
  • Bad Faith
  • Emotional Distress
State
  • Hawaii

A showing of bad faith is not contingent on the presence of any economic loss. Rather, UP argued, a claim of bad faith should rest on improper claim-handling alone.

Related Docs
Author This brief was written pro bono by Alan Van Etten of Deeley King Pang & Van Etten, LLLP.
Related Cases
Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union and Federal Insurance Company
Year: 2022
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Case Number: S069409
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Oregon

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders addresses the question of whether a policyholder can recover extra-contractual damages by bringing negligence per se cause of action for mishandling of an insurance claim in a way that violates Oregon statute. United Policyholders’ brief argues that insurance consumer…
Peterson v. Western National Mutual Insurance
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Case Number: A18-1081
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Minnesota

In its brief, UP weighed in on Minnesota’s bad faith statute, § 604.18, in order to protect Minnesota policyholders when an insurance company does not complete a reasonable investigation of a claim. UP weighed in to avoid a narrow reading of the statute which would not…
Ballard vs. Farmers Insurance Group
Year: 2001
Court: Texas Court of Appeals
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Texas

Insurance nullification by litigation; bad faith
Baugh Construction Company vs. Granite State Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: California Court of Appeal, 3rd District
Case Number: C023071
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Under New Jersey law, the obligation of good faith and fair dealing extends to the assertion, settlement and litigation of contract claims