National Insurance Law Forum : Insurance Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : National Insurance Law Forum : Insurance Coverage, Bad Faith Litigation

In this case, the insurer appealed a supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees to the plaintiff, its insured, after the plaintiff prevailed in an action for payment of uninsured motorist (UM) benefits. The plaintiff had sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident caused by a hit-and-run driver and sought UM benefits under her policy with the insurer. The insurer paid her $800 in exchange for her signing a “Trust Agreement and Release in Full,” which released and discharged the insurer from all rights, claims, demands and damages of any kind resulting from bodily injury arising from the accident. The plaintiff, however, did not speak or read English, and was not represented by counsel at the time.

More than a year later, the plaintiff retained counsel who sent the insurer a letter rescinding any previously executed release forms and requesting additional UM benefits under the plaintiff's policy. The insurer responded by letter that that there were no issues as to the existence of UM coverage, the only issues being the liability of the uninsured driver, the insured’s damages, or both, and that the insurer agreed to binding arbitration. The plaintiff also ultimately agreed to arbitration.

At arbitration, the issue was the enforceability of the release and, if it was determined not to be enforceable, the amount of additional damages owed to plaintiff. The arbitrator ruled that the release was unenforceable, and awarded the plaintiff damages in excess of $800, but declined to award attorney fees ruling that the defendant had qualified under ORS 742.061(3). That statute entitles an insured to attorney fees if he or she brings an action on a policy and recovers more than the insurer offers in settlement, but provides the insurer a “safe harbor” by insulating it against having to pay attorney fees in personal injury protection and UM cases if the insurer meets the statutory requirements. The arbitrator ruled that the insurer met all of the requirements for avoiding fees including the provision that the only disputed issues at arbitration were liability and damages.

The plaintiff filed an exception to the arbitrator's denial of attorney fees and requested a hearing de novo in circuit court. She contended that, in addition to damages and liability, the parties also disagreed on the enforceability of the release. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff and, in a supplemental judgment, awarded her $16,036.83 in attorney fees and costs.

The Court of Appeals examined the language and legislative history of the statute at issue and concluded that only after the arbitrator had resolved the preliminary issue of the release’s enforceability could the arbitrator address the issue of the damages that plaintiff should receive under the policy. Damages and liability, then, were not the only issues submitted to binding arbitration, and the insurer was therefore not eligible for the attorney fee “safe harbor” in ORS 742.061(3).
 

In Campbell v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 2009 Wash. Lexis 624 (Supreme Court of Washington, June 18, 2009), a parcel of land was divided into three lots, designated lots A, B, and C. In 1996, a pedestrian easement was granted, benefiting Lot C and burdening Lot B, for access to a lake. In 2001, the Campbells purchased Lot A. A 2002 survey revealed that the easement for lot C actually ran through a house on Lot B. When Edwards purchased Lot C in 2004 or 2005, the problem was discovered, and Edwards initiated a suit against the Campbells seeking a reformation re-drawing the easement so as to burden Lot A and be usable. The Campbells tendered defense of the Edwards suit to Ticor Title Insurance Company (“Ticor”), and Ticor denied coverage. The Court ruled that two exclusions, one for easements not disclosed by the public records, and another for “[d]efects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters . . . attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy,” clearly excluded coverage and there was no duty to defend.

What we find interesting about this case is not so much the unanimous decision on no duty to defend, as unusual as that might be, but the Court’s analysis and use of evidence apparently outside the complaint in reaching its conclusion. It is further interesting that the Court would accept review of an obscure title insurance case to reinforce or restate its duty to defend analysis, including the seemingly more stringent standard established in Woo v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 161 Wn.2d 43, 164 P.3d 454 (2007): “’[T]he duty to defend is triggered if the insurance policy conceivably covers the allegations in the complaint, whereas the duty to indemnify exists only if the policy actually covers the insured’s liability.’ Id. at 53. An insurer must defend unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the claim is not covered by the applicable policy. Id. ‘[I]f it is not clear from the face of the complaint that the policy provides coverage, but coverage could exist, the insurer must investigate and give the insured the benefit of the doubt that the insurer has a duty to defend.’ Id.” (Emphasis in original.)

Curiously, the Court does not reference much of the language of the complaint itself, and it seems to rely on matters determined by further investigation to deny the duty to defend. Regarding the first exclusion at issue, the Court states: “Reading the plain language of the title policy’s exclusions, the fact that no record here showed any easement affecting Lot A undermines the Campbells’s duty to defend claim.” The Court then states that the second exclusion is “relevant because the easement dispute arose after the date of the policy, once a survey revealed that the property line between lots A and B ran through the Gromo house and the easement was intended to run along that property line.”

The rule in Washington is essentially that if the complaint is ambiguous, the insurer is required to investigate further to determine whether there is a duty to defend. It also appears clear, however, e.g., Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc. 147 Wn.2d 751, 58 P.3d 276 (2002), that an insurer is not allowed to use further investigation to deny the duty to defend. It appears when a complaint is ambiguous, and further investigation establishes no coverage, under this case analysis, an insurer should be able to deny the duty to defend. That is not, however, explicitly stated.

MW Builders, the general contractor for the construction of the Candlewood Suites Hotel in Hillsboro Oregon, tendered the defense to and sought indemnity from subcontractor Portland Plastering and its insurer, Safeco, for claims for water damage caused by faulty work on the hotel’s exterior siding (EIFS). Safeco denied the tender and refused to defend or indemnify MW Builders. MW Builders settled with the hotel owner for $2 million, then filed a separate demand for arbitration against Portland Plastering. Safeco defended Portland Plastering at the arbitration, where the arbitrator determined that Portland Plastering was 31% at fault for the damages sustained by the hotel, awarding MW Builders $620,000 in damages, plus defense costs and attorney fees.

In the subsequent coverage action, the district court initially awarded MW Builders the full $620,000 arbitration award. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Safeco was obligated to provide coverage for damage to the hotel, but not for the costs associated with replacing the EIFS. 267 Fed. Appx. 552, 555 (9th Cir. 2008). Because the arbitration award was not partitioned into costs associated with repair of the EIFS and other damages to the hotel, the Ninth Circuit remanded the issue to the district court for a determination of this issue. Id.

On remand, Magistrate Judge Acosta interpreted the Ninth Circuit’s instructions as requiring him to “calculate what portion of the $620,000 award is attributed to the hotel damage claim, excluding the EIFS repair claim.” Based on information submitted by the parties, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that MW Builders was entitled to recover 60% of the arbitration award, or $372,000.

Reviewing MW Builders’ objections to the Findings and Recommendation, the district court held that the Ninth Circuit’s instructions were ambiguous. Instead of relying on the Magistrate Judge’s interpretation of the instructions, the court adopted MW Builders’ proposed alternative interpretation, “that the Ninth Circuit remanded the case ‘for this court to conduct a factual inquiry into the extent of the covered damages sustained by the hotel to ensure that these damages were equal to or greater than $620,000.’”

Relying on this alternative interpretation of the Ninth Circuit’s instructions, the court concluded that the Magistrate Judge’s partition of the arbitration award unfairly rewarded Safeco. While the insured generally bears the burden of establishing what portion of a settlement is reasonably allocable to covered claims, there are exceptions to the rule that will shift the burden to the insurer. Shifting the burden of proof is appropriate where “circumstances in the underlying action should have compelled the insurer to seek an allocated verdict or advise the insured of the need for one, or the insurer failed to adequately apprise the insured of the importance of apportionment.”

The court concluded that this exception applied here, citing Safeco’s refusal to defend MW Builders, which compelled MW Builders to negotiate settlement of the claims against it, and noting, “[d]efendant Safeco subsequently retained counsel to defend Portland Plastering in the subsequent arbitration and neglected to seek an allocation of damages in the resulting Knoll award.”

Having placed the burden on Safeco to prove allocation of the arbitration award, the court relied on its alternate interpretation of the Ninth Circuit’s instructions to hold that Safeco could not meet its burden because “such an apportionment at this point in the litigation is unavoidably and unfairly speculative and arbitrary.” Finding no dispute that the total property damaged incurred by the hotel exceeded $620,000, the court awarded MW Builders the full arbitration award amount.

The MW Builders decision appears alarming at first glance, but its applicability may be limited. The outcome springs from the district court’s conclusion that the Ninth Circuit’s remand instructions were ambiguous. That conclusion allowed the district court to bypass Safeco’s evidence of how the arbitration award should have been allocated because the court had already concluded that the only remaining question was whether the hotel sustained covered damages greater than $620,000. Because of this, the district court’s foray into the question of burden of proof is puzzling, and may constitute mere dicta.

Despite the opinion’s questionable general applicability, the court’s decision does raise questions about burden of proof in allocation cases. The district court’s conclusion that Safeco should bear the burden of proof because it should have sought an allocated verdict or advised the insured of the need for one relies mainly on an unpublished Delaware case, Premier Parks, Inc. v. TIG Ins. Co., C.A. No. 02C-04-126, 2006 Del. Super. LEXIS 383 (September 21, 2006). Assuming that Safeco appeals the decision, the Ninth Circuit could resolve the issue by simply clarifying its instructions and remanding the case again.

Under Oregon law, IIED and Outrageous Conduct are not separate torts. To prevail on a claim for IIED, a party must show that the defendant intended to cause emotional distress, the defendant engaged in outrageous conduct, and the action did result in severe emotional distress. The Court focused on the second element, noting that the claim required conduct “outrageous in the extreme.” In reviewing the facts, the Court noted that there was no outrageous conduct, only “an ordinary investigation of an extraordinary insurance claim.” The Court noted that even if the allegations could be considered deceit by the insurer, this was not outrageous conduct because the investigator did not misrepresent his role, threaten criminal action, or induce Mancuso to take any action to his detriment. The Court also rejected the defamation claim because the investigator did not actually accuse Mancuso of fraud when the investigator spoke to Mancuso’s ex-wife.

Plaintiff’s primary argument was that the policy was “irremediably ambiguous” because the retroactive date was meaningless to the property at issue, one of 17 properties, because the tanks at that location were installed after the retroactive date. Plaintiff argued this created an ambiguity because there was a potential for coverage based on a leak from before the tanks were installed. Plaintiff argued that because of this ambiguity the policy should be interpreted to cover tanks and prior tanks at a scheduled location so long as the release happened after the retroactive date.

The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected this argument. Following Oregon’s interpretative rules, the Court found that the policy was not ambiguous. The Court found that Plaintiff’s proposed interpretation was not plausible because it is directly contradictory to policy language that the policy was location and storage tank specific. Since Plaintiff’s proposed interpretation contradicted specific policy language, it was by definition not reasonable.

The Court also rejected an argument that the insurer was barred from taking its position by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Plaintiff argued that because the insurer had taken a contrary position in a case in Alaska, that it should be estopped from asserting that the policy does not apply to older tanks at a scheduled location. The Court found that since the insurer did not prevail in the Alaska case, that judicial estoppel does not apply.
 

MOE responded with a declaratory judgment action arguing, among other things, that no indemnity obligation existed because, as a result of the statute of limitations, the insured was not “legally obligated” to pay anything. Id. at 6. Following a judgment for the insured, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that in the absence of any showing of bad faith, the insurer “should be allowed to litigate to finality whether the statute of limitations had run on the underlying claims.” Id. at 7. The Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning that MOE already had a sufficient opportunity to be heard on the statute of limitations defense in the underlying case through an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment, the settlement negotiations and the reasonableness hearing. Id. at 12. The Court wrote that “[w]hen an insurer had an opportunity to be involved in a settlement fixing its insured’s liability, and that settlement is judged reasonable by a judge, then it is appropriate to use the fact of the settlement to establish liability and the amount of the settlement as the presumptive damage award for purposes of coverage.” Id. at 16. The Court held that, regardless of whether or not an insurer acts in good faith, the insurer “is not entitled to litigate factual questions that were resolved in the liability case by judgment or arm’s length settlement.” Id. at 18.

However, that determination did not resolve the extent of MOE’s indemnity obligation because the policy only covered “property damage” as defined and limited by the policy. As the Court correctly noted, “the coverage issue is different from the global damages issue.” Id. at 25. MOE argued that since the majority of the siding was not damaged, it should not be responsible for the cost to remove and replace the siding. Id. at 21. The Court rejected this argument, reasoning that “[r]emoving and repairing the siding is simply part of the cost of repairing the damage to the interior walls.” Id. at 22. Similarly, the Court rejected MOE’s argument that it should not be responsible for the cost of replacing siding because such costs fell within the “impaired property” and “your work” exclusions, concluding that “if the siding must be removed to repair damage” to other components of the building “then there is coverage for the cost of the removal and replacement of the siding.” Id. at 27. On the other hand, the Court found that the record was insufficient to determine the total amount of “property damage” covered by the policy because the settlement could have included amounts attributable to the diminution in value of the entire development “even if there had been no actual property damage to a particular wall.” Id. at 26. In other words, the Court could not tell whether the trial court’s ruling in the coverage action was based on an actual coverage determination or, rather, “merely” upon “the findings of the liability judge that the settlement was reasonable.” Id. at 26. Accordingly, the Court remanded for a closer examination of what damage had actually occurred.

The court noted the trial court had reduced the insured’s non-economic compensatory damages from $4 million to $1.2 million, and agreed that a $3 million punitive damages award was more in line with Supreme Court precedent on punitive damages. While the Supreme Court has deliberately chosen not to impose a bright line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed (State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 426 (2003)), it recently held that “few awards exceeding a single digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.” Exxon Shipping v. Baker, 554 U.S. ___, 128 Ct. 2605 (2008).

Further, the Ninth Circuit found that the jury’s $1 million award for the insured’s emotional distress, while “generous,” did not shock the conscience of the court; nor did the $200,000 awarded for the insured’s self-inflicted hand injury and relapse.

The insured in Leavey, a prescription drug addict attempting to rehabilitate himself, cut his hand to get prescription drugs and otherwise went into a downward spiral after the insurer wrote him terminating his benefits. He testified he was “devastated” upon receiving that letter, and for six months was anxious, confused and depressed, moving to a cheaper apartment to save money and looking without success for a new job. When the insurer said it was reinstating the insured’s benefits, the insured remained anxious because he thought the insurer might once again change its mind.

There was evidence the insurer knew the insured could not perform the duties of his occupation, but still subjected the insured to a roundtable review, for the sole purpose of closing his expensive claim; that the insurer sought to influence the opinions of the independent medical examiners hired to examine the insured; that it misrepresented the opinions of those independent medical examiners when it announced it was closing the insured’s claim; and that it knew the insured was a vulnerable individual who suffered from anxiety and depression and was recovering from a serious drug addiction and was at a high risk of relapse. Knowing all this, the insured still sent a letter to the insured wrongfully terminating his benefits. The court ruled a jury could have found the insurer acted to serve its own interests and consciously disregarded a substantial risk its conduct might significantly affect the rights of the insured, and that it acted not only in bad faith but also with an “evil mind,” such that punitive damages were appropriate.