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 under the policy to Allstate Construction, which then filed suit against the Defendant for breach of contract and bad faith.

Legal Issues:

The main legal issue revolves around whether Vina Cleaners can assert bad faith claims under Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 22:1892 and 22:1973 after assigning its rights to Allstate Construction. The court was required to decide if the assignment of rights included the right to pursue bad faith penalties, which are considered “extracontractual”. The USDC noted that there is a conflict between different district courts in Louisiana regarding the interpretation of these statutes.

ANALYSIS

The Court dismissed Allstate Construction’s bad faith claims against the insurer. The Court reasoned that Allstate Construction’s bad faith claims were “extracontractual” and the assignment of rights between Vina Cleaners and Allstate Construction did not expressly include an assignment of claims under Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 22:1892 or 22:1973.

Vina Cleaners, as an Intervenor, seeks to assert the same bad faith claims against the insurer. The court noted that in Creamer Brothers Inc. v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, No. CV 22-6110, 2024 WL 4518347 (W.D. La. Sept. 12, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that an assignor that assigned its rights under an insurance policy did not assign its bad faith claims because the assignment was not sufficiently express. Thus, the Western District held that the assignor retained its rights to bring bad faith claims against the insurer.

Vina Cleaners asked the Court to follow the Western District’s decision in Creamer Brothers and reject an interpretation that would allow insurers to evade accountability for bad faith conduct solely because the insured exercised its right to assign policy benefits.

There is a conflict between the Louisiana federal district courts’ interpretation of Louisiana law on this issue. Second, this is an important issue for both parties. If the Court grants Defendant’s Motion, the result is that no party holds the right to assert bad faith claims against Defendant. If the Court denies Defendant’s Motion, Defendant faces steep penalties under Louisiana’s bad faith statutes when it is unclear whether that result is legally sound. Since the issue involving Allstate Construction and the same counsel is presently on appeal, the USDC decided to not decide and denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Vina Cleaners’ Complaint of Intervention without prejudice hoping that the appellate court resolves the dispute between District Courts and the Motion can be renewed depending on how the appellate court rules.

ZALMA OPINION

The tort of bad faith is extracontractual and, therefore, cannot be assigned as an insured can assign any rights it has against an insurer under the contract. Allstate Construction tried to get tort damages from the court based on its assignment from Vina Cleaners, and lost. Vina then moved to intervene in the suit to get the tort damages allowed by Louisiana statutes even though it had given away its contract rights to Allstate Construction. The court, faced with different interpretations and a pending appeal, the court punted and by ruling “without prejudice” let the parties litigate but kept the motion to intervene subject to dismissal after the appellate court rules.

(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 InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.