(Thomson Reuters)
In some cases, one of the parties may decide to retain the services of a "claims handling expert." This was the case in Carson Cogeneration Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. CV 19-10797 PA (JEMx), 2020 WL 7059625 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2020), which has just been reported on Westlaw.
In that case, Scottsdale was accused of delaying investigation and payment of its policyholder's coverage claim, which caused harm to the policyholder. The policyholder, Carson, alleged claims for breach of the insurance contract and for insurer bad faith.
"Scottsdale's claims handling expert ... has opined that 'Scottsdale conducted and diligently pursued a reasonably thorough, fair and objective investigation in connection with Carson's claim pertaining to the alleged arcing event.'” Carson, 2020 WL 7059625, at *4.
The policyholder failed to rebut this evidence. In fact, the Court viewed the entire record and concluded that there was insufficient evidence of unreasonable delay, regardless.
Since there was no evidence of a breach of the insurance contract, there was no viable claim for coverage. In turn, there being no viable coverage claim, there could be no claim for insurer bad faith, either, under settled California law. Carson, 2020 WL 7059625, , at *5.
The Court accordingly granted Scottsdale's motion for summary judgment based on the record in this case.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments