The Duty of Good Faith & Fair Dealing Continues After Court Finds No Duty to Defend
Post 5076
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gKv_Zhzn, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gkPHVckZ and at https://lnkd.in/gXKjvr56 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Duty to Defend Required After New Facts Delivered
Nautilus Insurance Co. was entitled to rely on trial court Judge Dorsey's summary judgment ruling in a previously filed separate declaratory judgment action ("First Coverage Action" ) in which Judge Dorsey determined Nautilus did not have a duty to defend at that time. Because Nautilus was told it did not have a duty to defend Plaintiff Robert Wood, it was not liable for bad faith failure to settle during the September 2016 mediation three days after the summary judgment ruling.
In Robert Wood, et al. v. Nautilus Insurance Co., Nos. 24-293, 24-551, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (May 8, 2025) resolved the dispute over bad faith conduct with later developed facts.
THE DECISION
The Ninth Circuit concluded that district court did not commit clear error in determining Nautilus was not liable for bad faith failure to settle, because Nautilus did not have a duty to attempt to settle until there was a duty to defend, which was not triggered until after the first ReTender of the claim.
To allege a claim for bad faith, a party must plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that the insurer had no reasonable basis for disputing coverage, and that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that there was no reasonable basis for disputing coverage.
Arguments Not Raised "Clearly And Distinctly" In The Opening Brief Are Forfeited
Wood forfeited his claim for emotional distress damages by not "clearly and distinctly" asserting the claim in his opening brief and merely stating, "because the District Court denied Wood's failure-to-settle claim, it also denied his claim for emotional distress damages."
A plaintiff must establish a bad faith claim to be entitled to emotional distress damages. Given Nautilus was not liable for bad faith failure to settle, Wood had to tie his emotional distress damages to the denial of the Third or Fourth Re-Tenders, the only acts found to be in bad faith. Wood failed to do so and as such the district court properly denied his claim for emotional distress damages.
The district court did not commit clear error in finding that Nautilus is also not liable for bad faith failure to investigate the pre-mediation evaluation report.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the September 23, 2016 pre-mediation report did not trigger Nautilus' duty to defend - it merely provided additional evidence of a potential duty to defend. However, Judge Dorsey's order in the First Coverage Action, three days before the mediation, made clear Nautilus did not have a duty to defend. It was reasonable, therefore, for Nautilus to rely on the court order concluding it did not have a duty to defend.
The district court properly concluded that the punitive damages awarded in the underlying suit ("Switzer Action" ) were not recoverable against Nautilus because such indemnification is prohibited by Nevada public policy.
The unjust enrichment claim hinged on whether equity requires the policyholder, Wood, to pay. The Nevada Supreme Court has determined that when a court determines that the insurer never had a duty to defend, and the insurer clearly and expressly reserved its right to seek reimbursement, it is equitable to require the policyholder to pay.
It was ultimately determined that Nautilus had a duty to defend Wood in the Switzer Action, therefore, Nautilus cannot be said to have performed in excess of what was bargained for between Wood and Nautilus. Subsequently, the district court did not err in determining Nautilus was not entitled to reimbursement of its defense costs before July 28, 2017.
The district court found that Nautilus' denial of the duty to defend became unreasonable after Wood's Third Re-Tender, when it was revealed that the Weide Email falsely stated that Switzer was banned from selling certain implants in California.
The district court concluded that "[w]hile it was reasonable for [Nautilus] to rely on Judge Dorsey's rulings to some extent," once the falsity of the Weide Email was known, Nautilus "reckless[ly] disregard[ed]" the fact that there was no reasonable basis for disputing coverage and therefore acted in bad faith.
The district court concluded Nautilus acted in bad faith in denying the Fourth Re-Tender. This account of the evidence is plausible in light of the entire record, and therefore, the district court's determination was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
After an insurance company receives a trial court judgment that it has no duty to defend it can refuse to defend or participate in a mediation. However, the duty of good faith does not go away and the insurer must consider, in good faith, new facts that create a duty to defend. Nautilus was not required to pay punitive damages assessed against its insured nor was it entitled to a refund of the funds it spent to defend the insured because the Fourth Tender, and its evidence, created a duty to defend.
(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://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; 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 the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
