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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
