Facts:
Lora’s house was damaged by fire in 1992. She and her fire insurer then entered into a long dance which should have ended in July 1993, when the insurer (AMMI) petitioned for the appointment of 14 an umpire to oversee the appraisal process. But it was not until November 1993 that Lora agreed to participate. But then she changed her mind. In February 1994, the court ordered appraisal. The appraisers met at the property in April 1994, but Lora did not show up. Lora’s public adjuster would not let AMMI’s appraiser view the property until June 1994. In December 1994, an award for damage to the residence was made.
In December 1995, the appraisal hearings on personal property were held. AMMI offered $36,384.66 RCV, and Lora requested $142,701.19 RCV. The appraiser awarded $69,411.68 RCV. Lora sued AMMI for bad faith and CPA violations. The superior court dismissed when AMMI moved for summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Holdings:
Comment:
After setting out the rules, the court then went through each of the policyholder’s asserted WAC violations and pointed out that the policyholder had failed to present evidence to support the claim.
This decision is probably modified by the Ellwein decision. No longer will it be the company’s burden when moving for summary judgment on bad faith to show the absence of an issue of material fact. Instead, it will be the company’s burden to show the existence of an issue of material fact, because if there is an issue of material fact as to bad faith, then the policyholder cannot discharge its burden of proving bad faith as a matter of law.
American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. v. Osborn,
104 Wn. App. 686, 17 P. 3d 1229 (2001).The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
