Federal Court Addresses Minnesota's Insurance Standard of Conduct Statute
Insurance Coverage Alert
An insured submitted a claim to his insurer for hailstorm damage to the roofs, siding, decking, windows and doors of his buildings. The insurer subsequently sent two adjusters to assess the damage to the insured’s property, including one who was familiar with cedar shake roofs. Based on these inspections, the insurer first offered to replace the roofs, but later only agreed to repair them. When the insured complained, the insurer hired an independent adjuster, who determined that the roof could be repaired for approximately $16,000. An adjuster hired by the insured, however, estimated the cost for the repairs and replacements to be approximately $205,000.
The insured sued the insurer for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and unreasonable denial of benefits under Minn. Stat. § 604.18. Davis v. Grinnell, No. 0:09-cv-02563-JNE-FLN (Dec. 30, 2011 D. Minn.). Section 604.18 provides for extracontractual damages against the insurer if the insurer: (1) lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits of an insurance policy; and (2) knew of the lack of that reasonable basis or acted in reckless disregard of it. The insurer moved for summary judgment.
The insured argued that the nearly $200,000 gap between the insurer's tendered coverage and the amount the insured believed he should have been paid was enough to allow his Minn. Stat. § 604.18 claim to proceed. The court disagreed because the plain meaning of the statute required the insured to show that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits of the insurance policy or acted in reckless disregard of that lack of a reasonable basis. The court reasoned that, if a dispute about the amount of benefits, where benefits had not been denied, violated Section 604.18, such a situation would result in a general fee-shifting provision for all insurance claims, which is not what the law stated or did. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish that the insurer's offer to repair the roofs lacked a reasonable basis and that an issue of fact existed as to whether replacement or repair was required under the insurance contract. Accordingly, the court granted the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the Section 604.18 claim.
Insurers that make a claim decision that is well-documented and reasonably based on the evidence should avoid liability under Minn. Stat. § 604.18. As evidenced by this case, a dispute as to the benefits under a policy does not give rise to a claim under Section 604.18.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
REGISTER NOW for the Tenth Annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference
Attend the Tenth Anniversary of the industry's premier event focused on current and important developments in the law and litigation of malpractice claims, legal malpractice insurance and risk management strategies. Each Conference panel examines recent case law and significant developments throughout the last year. One and one-half days will be devoted to legal malpractice (February 16-17), and one and one-half days will be devoted to risk management (February 17-18). The Conference will be held in Chicago at The Westin Chicago River North.
Earn up to 15 hours of CLE credit, including up to 6.50 ethics credit!
Legal Malpractice Sessions (February 16-17)
- Settle and Sue: Is Legal Malpractice a Remedy for An Inappropriate Settlement or for the Settlement That Did Not Happen?
- What You Need to Know About Lawyers’ Liability Under the Federal and State Securities Laws
- Establishing a Fiduciary Breach
- Using Pretrial Remedies — Anti-SLAPP Statutes, and Other Evidentiary Early Disposition Motions
- Significant Developments in Litigating Legal Malpractice Claims
- Insurance Law
- Stump the Panel
Legal Malpractice/Risk Management Cross-Over Sessions (February 17)
- The Insurance Marketplace and Considerations
- Who is a “Partner” — The Legal Implications of Titles
- Mitigating or Avoiding the Loss
Risk Management Sessions (February 17-18)
- The General Counsel Forum
- Don’t Ignore the “Basics” — Engagement, Disengagement and End-of-Representation Letters
- The Growing Threats to Client (and Firm) Data — Managing Technology to Meet the Challenges
- High Tech Tools — and Traps — for Mergers and Lateral Hiring
- On the Horizon: Is Susskind Right? Technology and the Future of Large Law Firms
$1,300 for the Entire Conference — February 16-18
$925 for the Legal Malpractice Sessions Only — February 16-17
$925 for the Risk Management Sessions Only — February 17-18
Discounts (maximum 15% discount per registration)
- Returning registrants receive 5% off the Conference price
- Multiple registrants receive 15% off when two or more colleagues from the same company register for the Conference