Insurance Bad Faith in Disguise Fails
Post 4839
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_W3Mth, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gCHNmW-N and at https://lnkd.in/guNwYPNh and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Go to my sites at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe & https://zalma.com/blog
Health Care Services Corp. (HCSC) moved to dismiss a suit by an insured because Montana law precludes King’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. HCSC also argued that Montana statutory law prohibited King’s request for punitive damages and that the request should be stricken.
In Justin King v. Health Care Services Corp., No. CV-24-32-GF-BMM, United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division (July 15, 2024) the USDC resolved the various disputes.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
King, a resident of Montana, sued HCSC, a business incorporated in Illinois, for HCSC’s alleged breach of contract with its insured King when HCSC denied King’s claim for coverage of a back surgery. HCSC insured King under an individual health insurance policy (“the Policy”). King requested pre-approval from HCSC for a two-level lumbar disc arthroplasty (“the surgery”). HCSC denied King’s pre-approval request on December 14, 2022, citing to a policy exclusion contained in the Policy. King nevertheless underwent the back surgery on October 12, 2023, at a clinic in Germany. King alleged that the Policy provided coverage for the surgery.
DISCUSSION
Count I: Breach of Contract
HCSC argued that King failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract for Count I. HCSC contends that King failed to identify the contractual provision that would have required HCSC to cover his requested back surgery.
HCSC denied pre-approval for the surgery that King sought on the basis that the surgery was not appropriate, not medically necessary, and experimental.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of a medical device known as the prodisc L for 2-level lumbar disc arthroplasties on April 10, 2020. The FDA concluded that the 2-level lumbar disc arthroplasty was safe and effective for King’s condition. Therefore, the complaint provides sufficient language for the Court to draw a reasonable inference that HCSC had breached the Policy.
Count II: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
HCSC argues that King’s claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should be dismissed because Montana law precludes the claim. King contended that HCSC misdescribes the cause of action of Count II.
The USDC concluded that King’s complaint presents an insurance bad faith claim in disguise. King failed to prove the distinction between the breach of the implied covenant claim and a common law bad faith claim..
Punitive Damages
HCSC argued that Montana law bars King from including a request for an award of punitive damages in the complaint. King concedes that Montana law bars the inclusion of punitive damages in an initial pleading. The USDC concluded it must dismiss the punitive damages claim in accordance with Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-221(5).
However, King may file to amend the pleading for punitive damages after discovery begins.
Accordingly, IT WAS ORDERED that:
Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim is DISMISSED.
ZALMA OPINION
The State of Montana does not like bad faith and claims seeking punitive damages. The plaintiff – to avoid the requirements of the state – composed its complaint to disguise its bad faith claim as a different type of tort. The attempt failed and the USDC limited the case to the simple breach of contract action and allowed that the plaintiff could amend his complaint to allege bad faith after discovery. When a plaintiff has a winnable breach of contract claim it should do so and give up the attempt to get rich with a bad faith suit.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe OR Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
