When Claims are Fairly Debatable There is No Bad Faith
Post 4986
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gUnxtYNt, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g3Qbvh9G and at https://lnkd.in/gG3nfECc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Homeowners appealed from the district court’s denial of their breach-of-contract, consequential-damages, and bad-faith claims in Donnie Paul Bradley and Melanie Yvonne Bradley v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 23-1397, Court of Appeals of Iowa on January 23, 2025 resolved the disputes.
BACKGROUND:
Donnie and Melanie Bradley appealed from the district court’s summary judgment ruling and final judgment following contractual disputes against Allstate Insurance Company. The Bradleys alleged errors in the district court’s interpretation of the insurance policy for their breach-of-contract claim and the granting of summary judgment to Allstate on their consequential damages and bad-faith claims. The dispute arose as a result of:
1. The Bradleys purchased an Allstate insurance policy in 2014 for their Cedar Rapids home.
2. The policy included actual cash value (ACV) and replacement cost value (RCV) coverage.
3. The August 2020 Derecho windstorm caused significant damage to their home.
4. The Bradleys reported the damage, and Allstate acknowledged the losses were covered under the policy.
5. The Bradleys, unhappy with Allstate, demanded appraisal in November 2020.
6. The parties signed an appraisal for the ACV in September 2021, and Allstate paid the Bradleys in accordance with the insurance policy.
7. The Bradleys claimed breach of contract for Allstate denying RCV coverage, alleged bad faith, and demanded consequential and punitive damages.
8. The Bradleys spent more on repairs than Allstate paid out and they continued with litigation.
9. The Bradleys ultimately paid for the repairs by refinancing their home to establish a home equity line of credit and taking out a loan against a retirement account.
10. Allstate was to reimburse the Bradleys for repair costs in excess of ACV-the equivalent of the RCV-if repairs were completed within 180 days of the ACV payment.
CLAIMS AND PROCEEDINGS:
The district court granted summary judgment to Allstate on the consequential damages and bad-faith claims but denied it for the breach-of-contract claim.
The Bradleys withdrew their request for a jury trial, and Allstate eventually paid the RCV from the appraisal.
APPEAL:
The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision that consequential damages were not available under Iowa law.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the bad-faith claim was fairly debatable and that the Bradleys did not set forth a valid bad-faith claim.
DISPOSITION:
The question of whether the Bradleys were entitled to RCV payments was found to be fairly debatable as a matter of law. The Court concluded that the undisputed facts establish that there was no unreasonable delay in the ACV payment. Allstate reasonably disputed coverage as to the RCV payments on the basis that the explicit terms of the policy require repair to be completed for an RCV payment to be made.
The claim was, in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, fairly debatable because replacement was not completed within 180 days of the ACV payment. The Court of Apeals concluded that the Bradleys could not succeed on their bad faith claim.
ZALMA OPINION
The Iowa Court of Appeals educated the Bradleys and their counsel holding that an insurance policy is a contract with conditions. The Allstate policy provided, as a condition, that to receive the difference between ACV payment and the RCV the repairs must be completed within 180 days of the ACV payment. Although there was a dispute over when the repairs were completed Allstate paid both the ACV and the RCV making the entire claim moot and the other claimed damages were fairly debatable and no evidence to support a bad faith claim.
(c) 2025 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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
