 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Britton v. Smythe9/21/2000
d at the outset, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, claiming their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. We perceive no material facts in dispute. Smythe, Cramer's late attempt to reserve its rights to coverage waived its ability to assert that right. Moreover, Smythe, Cramer's delay in waiting until just one month before the scheduled trial date to disclaim coverage prejudiced plaintiff's ability to defend the matter. For these reasons, we find the court erred by granting 70637, unreported at 7-10.
Smythe, Cramer summary judgment on the indemnification claim. We find, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was entitled to coverage under the legal defense plan as a consequence of Smythe, Cramer's failure to reserve its rights in a timely manner. The first assignment of error is sustained.
II.
The second assignment of error complains the court erred by granting Smythe, Cramer summary judgment on plaintiff's bad faith claim. Plaintiff alleged that Smythe, Cramer's refusal to provide coverage and refusal to settle the Lamb litigation so that the claim could have been structured to fall under the errors and omissions provisions of the Legal Defense Program constituted bad faith. The court initially denied summary judgment on these claims, but then granted them on reconsideration, apparently agreeing with Smythe, Cramer's view that the liability verdict against plaintiff in Lamb ruled out any finding of bad faith in refusing to extend coverage under the fraud/intentional conduct exclusion of the legal defense program.
An insurer has a duty to its insured to act in good faith in the handling and payment of an insured's claims. Hoskins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 272, paragraph two of the syllabus. An insurer fails to exercise good faith in the processing of a claim of its insured where its refusal to pay the claim is not predicated upon circumstances that furnish reasonable justification therefor. Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 552, paragraph one of the syllabus.
Although listed as a single claim for relief in the complaint, plaintiff's bad faith claim rests on two different grounds. First, plaintiff alleged that Smythe, Cramer failed to reserve its rights in a timely manner despite knowledge that she may have engaged in excluded conduct. Second, plaintiff claimed that Smythe, Cramer acted in bad faith by failing to make a reasonable settlement.
Smythe, Cramer strenuously argues that it had no duty to reserve its rights because the Lamb complaint alleged that plaintiff engaged in fraud intentional conduct that would be barred from coverage under the legal defense program. It maintains a reservation of rights would have been a vain act since Ohio public policy precludes insurance coverage for intentional torts. Since a reservation of rights would have been a vain act, it reasons that it cannot be liable for bad faith in denying a claim that is against public policy.
Smythe, Cramer correctly notes that it is against public policy to allow insurance coverage for intentional torts. See Wedge Products, Inc. v. Hartford Equity Sales (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 65,67. However, a claim of bad faith is a tort arising out of the contractual duty to defend in good faith. In Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Said (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 690, 694-695, overruled on other grounds, Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 552, paragraph one of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court stated:
At the outset, we recognize the well-established principle in Ohio that im- poses on the insurer a duty to act in good faith in the handling and payment of the claims of its insured. Hoskins v. Aetna L
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|