 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hennings5/31/2005
the jury's damages award should be reduced either because it exceeded the policy limits or because the award was excessive based upon the evidence. We agree with its first assertion: that the trial erred in denying its motion because the jury's damages award required reduction to the extent it exceeded the policy limits of $100,000.
We reverse a trial court's denial of a motion to correct error only for an abuse of discretion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 759 N.E.2d 1162, 1165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). There is such an abuse of discretion "if the trial court misinterprets the law." Id.
Punitive damages are not available in an action for breach of contract; only "where the conduct of the breaching party independently establishes the elements of a common law tort" may punitive damages be awarded - "for the tort." Miller Brewing v. Best Beers, 608 N.E.2d 975, 981 (Ind. 1993). Indiana tort law includes the insurer's "duty to deal with its insured in good faith," an "obligation of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the discharge of the insurer's contractual obligation" which
includes the obligation to refrain from (1) making an unfounded refusal to pay policy proceeds; (2) causing an unfounded delay in making payment; (3) deceiving the insured; and (4) exercising any unfair advantage to pressure an insured into a settlement of his claim.
Erie Ins. Co. v. Hickman, 622 N.E.2d 515, 519 (Ind. 1993). However, an insured cannot claim "tort damages for the breach of the duty to exercise good faith" simply because "an insurance claim is erroneously denied" - "even if it is ultimately determined that the insurer breached its contract" in denying the claim. Id. at 520 (emphasis added). Accordingly, as a matter of law, punitive damages
may be awarded only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, fraud, gross negligence, or oppressiveness which was not the result of a mistake of fact or law, honest error or judgment, over-zealousness, mere negligence, or other human failing . . . .
Id. at 520 (citation omitted).
Both Allstate and Hennings argue the case of Allstate v. Hammond., 759 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Therein, Hammond sued her insurer, Allstate, after an accident in which her vehicle was struck by an uninsured motorist. The jury returned a verdict of $160,000 for Hammond. Because her policy limit for uninsured motorist coverage was $51,000, Allstate filed a motion to correct error asserting that it could not be held liable for any amount in excess of $51,000. The trial court denied Allstate's motion, and Allstate appealed. Our review of the facts noted that - unlike in this case -Allstate had "conceded it was liable in damages to Hammond, but . . . dispute the medical evidence as to the extent of her injuries and the amount of recovery to which she was entitled." Id. at 1165. However, we also found that Hammond's arguments to the jury never suggested that Allstate "breached its duty to Hammond of good faith and fair dealing" but rather referred to Allstate's "contractual obligation" for her damages based upon the contract of insurance between herself and Allstate. Id. at 1166. Finally, we noted that Hammond did not request punitive damages, and that according to the record, the trial did "not involve the issue of bad faith." Id. We discussed how the distinction between an action in tort and an action in contract affected the respective damages awards for these two kinds of actions. We then concluded that
in a first-party action by an insured to collect uninsured motorist benefits from his or her insurer, the amount of recoverable damages cannot exceed the limits provide
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|