Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. Smith
1993 Ind. LEXIS 175, 1993 WL 433433, 622 N.E.2d 515 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer has a legal duty to deal in good faith with its insured, and the breach of this duty gives rise to an independent cause of action in tort.
Facts:
- On March 24, 1986, Ramona Hickman, driving a car owned by her mother Nancy Smith, was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by Gregory Davis.
- Smith's vehicle was insured by Erie Insurance Company (Erie) under a policy that included uninsured motorist coverage.
- After the accident, Smith learned that Davis was uninsured and filed a claim with Erie under her uninsured motorist coverage.
- Erie's adjuster conducted an investigation which revealed conflicting evidence, including contradictory police reports and witness statements, regarding whether Hickman or Davis was primarily at fault for the collision.
- Based on its investigation, Erie's adjuster concluded that Hickman was more than 50% at fault, which under Indiana law would bar her from recovering from Davis.
- Consequently, in April 1986, Erie denied Smith's uninsured motorist claim on the grounds that its insured was not legally entitled to recover damages from the uninsured motorist.
- It took Erie more than a year to formally confirm that Davis was, in fact, uninsured at the time of the collision.
- Erie also paid for the property damage to Davis's vehicle and obtained a release from him on behalf of its insured, Smith.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramona Hickman and Nancy Smith sued Erie Insurance Company in an Indiana trial court, alleging breach of contract and seeking punitive damages for bad faith.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages.
- Erie appealed the award of punitive damages to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the punitive damages award.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration under a different standard of review.
- On remand, the Court of Appeals again reversed the punitive damages award, reasoning that a recent Supreme Court case, Miller Brewing Co. v. Best Beers, prohibited such damages in breach of contract actions without an independent tort.
- The plaintiffs (Hickman and Smith) petitioned for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Indiana law recognize an independent tort action for an insurer's breach of its duty to deal in good faith with its insured?
Opinions:
Majority - Krahulik, Justice
Yes. Indiana law recognizes a distinct cause of action in tort for an insurer's breach of its duty to deal in good faith with its insured. Previously, punitive damages could be recovered in contract actions against insurers, but the court's decision in Miller Brewing Co. v. Best Beers eliminated that possibility by requiring an independent tort for such damages. To fill this gap, the court now formally recognizes this tort by applying a three-factor test for establishing a legal duty: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the foreseeability of harm, and (3) public policy. The court found the insurer-insured relationship is a 'special relationship' that, combined with the foreseeable harm of a wrongful denial and public policy favoring fair play, justifies imposing a tort duty. However, the court clarified that a good faith dispute over liability or an erroneous denial of a claim does not, by itself, constitute a breach of this duty; the insurer must lack any 'rational, principled basis' for its actions. In this specific case, the court found the evidence was insufficient to support punitive damages because Erie had a rational basis for denying the claim due to the conflicting evidence regarding fault.
Analysis:
This landmark Indiana Supreme Court decision formally establishes the tort of bad faith against insurers, providing insureds with a legal remedy beyond a simple breach of contract claim. By creating this cause of action, the court allows for the possibility of recovering tort damages, including punitive damages, which were previously unavailable in contract actions after the Best Beers decision. The ruling carefully balances the rights of insureds with the need for insurers to dispute claims in good faith, setting a high standard for bad faith claims by requiring the insured to prove the insurer acted without any 'rational, principled basis.' This decision significantly impacts insurance litigation in Indiana, clarifying the standards for insurer conduct and the remedies available to policyholders.
