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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
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 ...