In the case of Gorrell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Insurance Co., Download Gorrell v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. (D. Nev. Case No. 2.08cv01757, OpinIon Filed June 28, 2010)(FREE ACCESS) also published as 2010 WL 2628651 (D. Nev. June 28, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw), a treating chiropractor told the Defendant Insurance Company that Kathleen Gorrell and Daniel Gorrell would reach Maximum Medical Improvement by July 1, 2007. Gorrell, 2010 WL 2628651 at *3.
For some reason, their Insurance Carrier insisted on an IME or Independent Medical Examination which was performed by another chiropractor. The IME chiropractor also concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Gorrell would reach MMI no later than July 1, 2007. Id. The Defendant Insurance Carrier, which provided the Plaintiffs with Med Pay for otherwise covered "reasonable medical expenses," declined to pay for additional chiropractic treatment in a letter it sent to them in August, 2007. Id. at *1.
On these facts, the Federal Court in this case granted the Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment "as to Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," citing Nevada law. Id. at *4.
The same Federal Judge had concluded previously in this same decision, that Wyoming and not Nevada law applied. In fact, "[b]ecause Wyoming law applies to this case," the Court earlier held, "Plaintiffs' cause of action for unfair claim practices under NRS 686A.300 fails as a matter of law." Id. at *2.
Presumably the Court would have reached the same result in that First-Party Bad Faith case under Wyoming law, based upon the evidence presented. See generally Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" ยง 11:17, "Fairly or Reasonably Debatable Claims" (Shepard's/McGraw-Hill First Edition; West Publishing Co. Second Edition and 2010 Supplement).
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments