Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. Smith
1993 Ind. LEXIS 175, 622 N.E.2d 515, 1993 WL 433433 (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. However, an insurer may dispute liability in good faith if there is a rational, principled basis for denying the claim, even if a court later finds the denial was incorrect.
Facts:
- Nancy Smith owned a vehicle insured by Erie Insurance Company (Erie), which included uninsured motorist coverage.
- On March 24, 1986, Smith's daughter, Ramona Hickman, was driving the insured vehicle when she was involved in a collision with a car driven by Gregory Davis.
- Hickman was making a left turn when the collision occurred, and accounts from Hickman, Davis, a witness, and two conflicting police reports disagreed as to which driver was primarily at fault.
- Smith and Hickman learned that Davis was uninsured at the time of the accident and subsequently filed a claim with Erie under their uninsured motorist policy.
- Erie conducted an investigation and, based on the conflicting evidence, concluded that Hickman was more than 50% at fault for the accident.
- Based on its determination of fault, Erie denied the uninsured motorist claim, asserting that under Indiana's comparative fault law, Hickman was not legally entitled to recover from Davis.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramona Hickman and Nancy Smith sued Erie Insurance Company in an Indiana trial court, alleging breach of contract and bad faith and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them both compensatory and punitive damages.
- Erie Insurance Company, as appellant, appealed the punitive damages award to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the punitive damage award.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the appellate decision, and remanded the case for reconsideration under a different standard of review.
- On remand, the Court of Appeals again reversed the punitive damages award based on the intervening Supreme Court decision in Miller Brewing Co. v. Best Beers.
- Hickman and Smith, as petitioners, sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court to review the second appellate court decision.
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 an insurer's breach of its duty to deal in good faith with its insured give rise to an independent cause of action in tort for which punitive damages may be awarded?
Opinions:
Majority - Krahulik, Justice
Yes, an insurer's breach of its duty to deal in good faith with its insured gives rise to an independent cause of action in tort. The court recognizes this new tort cause of action because the unique, sui generis nature of the insurance contract creates a special relationship between the insurer and the insured that warrants legal protection beyond contract law. This decision was prompted by the court's prior holding in Miller Brewing Co. v. Best Beers, which eliminated punitive damages for breach of contract actions without an independent tort. The court holds that an insurer breaches this duty when it denies a claim knowing there is no rational, principled basis for doing so. However, a good faith dispute over liability does not constitute a tort, even if the insurer's denial is later found to be erroneous. Applying this standard, the court found that while Erie was wrong about liability, it had a rational basis for denying the claim due to the conflicting evidence regarding fault. Therefore, Erie was not liable for the tort of bad faith, and the punitive damages award was improper.
Analysis:
This landmark Indiana decision formally establishes the first-party insurance bad faith tort, aligning the state with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions. By creating an independent tort, the court provides a mechanism for insureds to recover extra-contractual and punitive damages for egregious insurer conduct, which was previously unavailable after the Best Beers decision. The decision carefully distinguishes between a simple breach of contract (an incorrect denial) and a tort (a denial with no rational basis), setting a standard that protects insurers who dispute claims in good faith. This dual-track approach—allowing claims for both breach of contract and the tort of bad faith—shapes modern insurance litigation by defining the high threshold an insured must meet to prove bad faith and recover punitive damages.
