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.
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Private Limitation In Accordance With Statute Defeats a Claim
Post 5204
There is No Good Reason to Delay Filing Suit
In Christian Care Center v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:25-CV-00321-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division (October 6, 2025) a private limitation of action provision effective barred the suit.
KEY FACTS:
Plaintiff and Defendant:
The case involves an insured, the Christian Care Center (Plaintiff) and its insurer American Alternative Insurance (Defendant) in a coverage dispute.
Loss Event:
Plaintiff’s property sustained damage due to a storm on April 27, 2020.
Insurance Claim:
Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendant on February 2, 2022, which was denied on July 29, 2022.
Lawsuit:
Plaintiff sued alleging breach of contract and violations of Chapters 541 ...
Insured May Intervene to Assert Bad Faith Claim Not Assigned
Post 5203
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v7013x8-insured-cant-assign-bad-faith-claim.html and at https://youtu.be/e8OApzn6YZs, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Judge Requires Conflict Between Different District Courts in Louisiana Requires Conflict to be Resolved on Appeal
In Allstate Construction, Inc. v. Ohio Security Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 23-01295-BAJ-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (September 30, 2025) Vina Cleaners, the insured, assigned its claim against Ohio Security to Allstate Construction but did not assign its rights to sue for the tort of bad faith so it intervened in Allstate Construction’s suit.
Background and Procedural History:
In an insurance dispute following damage caused by Hurricane Ida to Vina Cleaners’ property. Vina Cleaners was insured under a commercial policy with the Defendant, Ohio Security Insurance Company. Vina Cleaners assigned its rights ...
Willful and Malicious Injury by the Debtor to Another Entity is Nondischargeable
Intentional Conduct Causing Injury not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy
Post 5202
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In In re Niko T. Irizarry, Mark Riley v. Niko T. Irizarry, No. 2:24-bk-01261-FMD, Adv. No. 2:24-ap-00035-FMD, United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (September 30, 2025) established that fraudulent conduct is not dischargeable in Bankruptcy.
Background and Allegations:
Plaintiff Mark Riley filed a lawsuit against Defendant Niko Irizarry in federal district court, alleging claims for civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, malicious prosecution, violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, common law false imprisonment or arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Riley’s claims are based on allegations with...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is 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.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is 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.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
Barry Zalma: Insurance Claims Expert Witness
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive ...