Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
July 16, 2025
There is no Tort of Negligent Claims handling in Alaska

Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

CASE OVERVIEW

In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.

FACTS

Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.

Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:

1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.

Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before trial.

KEY MOTIONS AND DECISIONS

Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Establish a General Business Practice

This motion was denied. Bernier failed to provide sufficient evidence that State Farm had a general business practice of not offering prejudgment interest or Rule 82 attorney fees on UM/UIM claims.

Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Establish Bad Faith

This motion was denied. The court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether State Farm's behavior was objectively unreasonable.

State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count IV (Punitive Damages)

This motion was denied. The court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether State Farm acted with reckless indifference to the interests of its insureds.

ANALYSIS

A court must grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact.

If the movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, the nonmovant need not produce anything. But if the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a material, factual dispute.  A summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.

Bernier's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Establish a General Business Practice

Bernier sought a Partial Summary Judgment from this Court that State Farm is engaged in a particular established general business practice, an element of the tort of bad faith.

In the insurance context, when the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment of the claim of its insured, it is subject to liability in tort.  Although the tort of bad faith in first-party insurance cases may or may not require conduct which is fraudulent or deceptive, it necessarily requires that the insurance company's refusal to honor a claim be made without a reasonable basis.

The contractual provision at issue provides that State Farm will pay prejudgment interest and Rule 82 attorney fees “in addition to the limits of this coverage.” Thus. the plain language of the insurance policy here requires State Farm to pay such fees.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to State Farm, there is a genuine issue as to whether Bernier, himself, needed to litigate, as State Farm offered to pay full policy limits plus add-ons before State Farm knew Bernier was suing.

Bernier's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Establish Bad Faith 

Bernier did not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that State Farm's alleged violations are general business practices. Whether the individual acts are “objectively unreasonable” is a genuine issue of material fact.

Whether State Farm excludes contracted-for add-ons as a general business practice, such that it may be evidence of bad faith, is a genuine issue for trial.

The experts hired by both sides for this litigation disagree as to whether the claim adjustor's reduction of Bernier's medical bills was defensible, creating a genuine issue of material fact. Because Bernier sufficiently raised a factual question as to whether, taking State Farm's actions as a whole, State Farm's denial of Bernier's claim lacked a reasonable basis, State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment to Count III was denied.

Negligent and Reckless Claims Handling

Alaska courts do not recognize the existence of a negligence tort action against an insurer in a first-party insurance context.

State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count IV of Plaintiff's Complaint  

To support punitive damages under Alaska law, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the wrongdoer's conduct was outrageous, such as acts done with malice or bad motives or reckless indifference to the interests of another person. Malice need not be express but may be inferred from acts evidencing a callous disregard for the rights of others.

The District Court Judge concluded that there were genuine issues as to whether State Farm had a general business practice of not offering to pay elements of its coverage obligations and a practice of improperly reducing medical expenses. Whether this conduct is sufficiently outrageous to warrant an award of punitive damages is a question for a jury.

ZALMA OPINION

Alaska is different because its statutes require - and insurer's include in their policies - the need to pay attorneys fees and add on additional payments not usually found in other states. However, evidence is still required and the court in a very lengthy opinion reduced the issues needed for trial and left important issues like the tort of bad faith and availability of punitive damages to the jury.

(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. 

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
March 11, 2026
Public Adjusters Attempt to Represent an Insured Subject to APA Clause

Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York

Post number 5301

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster

In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.

FACTS

NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...

00:08:05
placeholder
March 11, 2026
Public Adjusters Attempt to Represent an Insured Subject to APA Clause

Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York

Post number 5301

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster

In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.

FACTS

NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...

00:08:05
placeholder
March 10, 2026
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish

Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments

Post number 5300

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish

Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges

In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts

Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...

00:07:28
placeholder
10 hours ago
Portable Storage Containers are not Buildings

Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties

Post number 5307

Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.

In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)

In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...

post photo preview
10 hours ago
Failure to Provide Well-Pled Facts Defeats Most of Action

ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit

Post number 5306

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity

In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...

post photo preview
March 19, 2026
Failure to Provide Well-Pled Facts Defeats Most of Action

ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit

Post number 5306

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity

In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals