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
July 22, 2026
The Real Cost of Fraud

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 ...

00:12:33
July 20, 2026
Search Warrant Produces Evidence of Insurance Fraud

Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397

Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX

Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.

In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”

As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.

LAW:

The ...

00:08:22
July 17, 2026
The Great Jewel Theft

Fraud Shouldn’t Pay

Post 5396

See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA

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.

The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.

One month after the policy was ...

00:09:42
9 hours ago
Plaintiff Sues Because State Employees Stigmatized Her

Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State

Post 5421

Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial

In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.

She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...

post photo preview
August 05, 2026
It Doesn’t Pay to Lie in an Application for Insurance

Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418

Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma

An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.

In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:

A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...

post photo preview
August 05, 2026
It Doesn’t Pay to Lie in an Application for Insurance

Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418

Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma

An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.

In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.

LAW:

A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

As a result, the...

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