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
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
BACKGROUND
See the video at https://rumble.com/v79dts2-crime-doesnt-pay.html and at https://youtu.be/dw0f4goCbxA, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Plaintiff:
Andrew J. Mitchell, an incarcerated individual proceeding pro se sued Pandit Law Firm, LLC, on behalf of a corporation that was controlled by Mitchell who had operated Mitchell Adjusting International LLC (MAI), a Texas limited liability company.
According to the US Attorney:
A Texas man (Mitchell) acting as an insurance adjuster who cheated an Albany church out of millions of dollars paid out by its insurance company to repair its facilities heavily damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018 was sentenced to serve more than 19 years in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4 million in restitution to victims in several states.
Andrew Mitchell, formerly Andrew Aga, 46, of Houston, Texas, was sentenced to serve 235 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $2,895,903.01 in restitution to the Brotherhood ...
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 ...
