WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT INSURANCE FAIR CONDUCT ACT IS ONLY APPLICABLE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A DENIAL OF COVERAGE AS OPPOSED TO A VIOLATION OF INSURANCE REGULATIONS

By on February 7, 2017
Leave a comment

On February 2, 2016, the Washington Supreme Court provided some much needed guidance on what actions by an insurer will support a claim under Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“the IFCA”). Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Casualty Co., ___ P.3d ___ (No. 92267-5, Feb. 2, 2017). Although the IFCA was enacted in 2007 and is generally focused on preventing unreasonable conduct by insurers, the federal district courts in Washington have disagreed on what a plaintiff must show to maintain a cause of action. See Langley v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26079 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 24, 2015); Cardenas, et al. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145194 (W.D. Wash. 2011).  The Washington Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue until now.

Unlike a Washington common law bad faith action, the IFCA allows attorney fees and treble damages for a violation, one of the few instances in Washington where punitive damages are permitted. Unfortunately the language of the primary statute of the IFCA, RCW 48.30.015, is less than clear and has been kindly referred to as “vexing” by a judge in the Eastern District of Washington. Workland & Witherspoon v. Evanston Ins. Co., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1148, 1155 (E.D. Wash 2015).

The dispute centers on whether a violation of certain state insurance regulations, such as where an insurer does not respond to certain communications within 10 days, is enough to support an IFCA cause of action, or whether an insurer must unreasonably deny a claim for coverage or payment of benefits for an IFCA cause of action to exist. In a somewhat rare victory for insurers in the Washington appellate courts, the Washington Supreme Court sided with the insurer and held that there must actually be an actual denial of coverage for the insured to move forward with an IFCA lawsuit.

The case involved an underinsured motorist claim where State Farm paid PIP benefits but balked at paying the additional amounts the plaintiff demanded; an arbitrator subsequently ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s IFCA lawsuit on summary judgment and the Washington Supreme Court accepted direct review.

In ruling in State Farm’s favor, the court held that RCW 48.30.015 is ambiguous and therefore turned to its legislative history, including the ballot title that was put before Washington’s voters in 2007. The court concluded that the IFCA was meant to apply to denials of coverage as opposed to violations of the insurance regulations. In doing so it rejected the position of the Washington Pattern Jury Instruction committee, which had developed a jury instruction that contemplated the situation where the IFCA cause of action was based only upon a violation of the insurance regulations.

After Perez-Crisantos, it is now clear that violations of the Washington insurance regulations are relevant to an insured’s claimed damages under the IFCA, but such alleged violations by themselves are insufficient to pursue an IFCA cause of action. For such a cause of action to exist, the insured must show an actual denial of coverage.

Filed under Appellate, Auto, Bad Faith, Unfair Insurance Practices

No “Occurrence” Found Where Contractor Intentionally Performed Defective Work With The Hope It Would Not Cause Property Damage

By and on February 6, 2017
Leave a comment

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed in part and reversed in part an order awarding an insurance company its $1 million policy limits used to settle a construction defect claim on behalf of an insured general contractor.

In Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Moorefield Construction, Inc., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132 (December 27, 2016), a building owner, JSL Properties, LLC (“JSL”), and a developer, D.B.O. Development No. 28 (“DBO”), sued a general contractor, Moorefield Construction, Inc. (“Moorefield”), for floor leaks which occurred at a Best Buy electronics store between 2003 and 2009. In its second amended complaint, JSL claimed that Moorefield had defectively installed flooring on top of a concrete slab despite knowing that the existing slab contained excessive moisture levels. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) defended Moorefield in the action subject to a reservation of rights under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The litigation settled for $1,310,000 of which Navigators contributed its $1 million policy limits.

Navigators filed a declaratory relief lawsuit against Moorefield seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the general contractor in the underlying construction defect action. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a decision in favor of Navigators and against Moorefield. The trial court found that the flooring defects did not constitute an “occurrence” or accident under the policy. The trial court also held that Navigators had no duty to make any payments under the “supplementary payments” portion of the policy. Navigators received an award which required Moorefield to reimburse Navigators its $1 million policy limits contributed to settle claim.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that Navigators had no duty to indemnify Moorefield in the underlying action. The appellate court found evidence which established that Moorefield knew about the excessive moisture in the concrete slab and that it deliberately installed the flooring despite this known condition. Thus, the Court of Appeal held that no unexpected or unintended event constituted an “occurrence” to trigger an indemnity obligation under the policy. Moorefield and amicus curiae argued that construction defects could not be considered intentional conduct unless the contractor expected or intended its work to be defective and cause property damage. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument by stating, on the record before it, Moorfield knew about and intended to perform defective work with the hope it would not cause property damage. Even though Moorfield did not intend to cause property damage, the insured’s subjective belief was irrelevant.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the trial court’s ruling which found that Navigators had no duty to make payments under the “supplementary payments” provision of the policy. The Court of Appeal determined that Navigators owed a duty to pay for attorneys’ fees and costs as part of the settlement because such amounts were recoverable under the construction contract and were awardable as taxed costs in litigation. Although no duty to indemnify existed, the appellate court found that Navigators was obligated to pay “supplementary payments” as part of its broader duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal also found that the trial court had improperly determined that the entire $1 million settlement payment was made for damages, rather than attorneys’ fees. The evidence indicated that JSL and DBO had only incurred $377,000 in damages related to the floor leaks. The appellate court further held that the trial court had committed prejudicial error in placing the burden of proof for this issue on Moorefield. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal remanded the case for a new trial seeking allocation of the settlement payment between damages and attorneys’ fees.

Click here for the opinion.

The opinion in Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Moorefield Construction, Inc., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132 (December 27, 2016), is not final. It may be withdrawn from publication, modified on rehearing, or review may be granted by the California Supreme Court. These events would render the opinion unavailable for use as legal authority in California state courts.

Filed under Commercial General Liability, Construction Defect, Duty to Defend