Fletcher v. Western National Life Insurance
89 Cal.Rptr. 78, 47 A.L.R. 3d 286, 10 Cal. App. 3d 376 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer’s bad-faith, malicious refusal to make payments due under an insurance policy constitutes tortious conduct. This violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing allows the insured to recover damages for all resulting harm, including emotional distress and punitive damages, independent of the breach of contract.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Fletcher, a man with a fourth-grade education supporting a wife and eight children, purchased a disability insurance policy from Western National Life Insurance Company.
- The policy provided monthly payments for up to two years for disability due to sickness and for up to 30 years for disability due to injury.
- In January 1965, Fletcher sustained a severe and totally disabling back injury at work.
- Western National began making payments but, in May 1966, claims supervisor Tom Amason reclassified Fletcher's injury as a 'sickness' to limit the company's liability to two years, based on a baseless interpretation of a medical report.
- Subsequently, Western National falsely accused Fletcher of having a pre-existing congenital back condition that he had failed to disclose on his application, even though their own files contained information to the contrary.
- Knowing Fletcher was in a dire financial situation due to his disability, Western National stopped all payments, accused him of fraud, demanded he repay $2,250, and threatened to cancel his policy.
- As a direct result of the cessation of payments, Fletcher's family suffered severe financial hardship; their utilities were shut off, house payments became delinquent, they lost a property they were investing in, and his wife had to start working.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Fletcher filed a complaint against Western National and Amason in a California superior court (trial court).
- The complaint included claims for declaratory relief, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- At the beginning of the trial, Western National stipulated to a judgment against it on the declaratory relief count, admitting benefits were due under the injury provision.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for a nonsuit on the fraud cause of action.
- The IIED claim proceeded to a jury, which found in favor of Fletcher, awarding $60,000 in compensatory damages, $10,000 in punitive damages against Amason, and $640,000 in punitive damages against Western National.
- Defendants moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial.
- The trial court denied the JNOV motions. It also denied the new trial motions on the condition that Fletcher accept a reduction (remittitur) of the punitive damages against Western National to $180,000, which he did.
- Defendants, the appellants, appealed from the final judgment and the order denying their JNOV motion to the California Court of Appeal.
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 bad-faith, malicious refusal to pay legitimate policy benefits, combined with threatening and false communications intended to coerce the insured into surrendering the policy, constitute tortious conduct for which damages for emotional distress and punitive damages may be recovered?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaufman, J.
Yes, an insurer's bad-faith refusal to pay legitimate benefits is a tort, not merely a breach of contract. An insurer owes its insured an implied-in-law duty of good faith and fair dealing, and the violation of that duty sounds in tort. This duty prohibits an insurer from threatening to withhold or actually withholding payments, maliciously and without probable cause, for the purpose of injuring its insured by depriving them of the policy's benefits. The court held that the defendants' entire course of conduct—including the bad faith refusals to pay and the false, threatening communications—was outrageous and could serve as the basis for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Furthermore, the court established that such conduct also constitutes a separate tort of interference with a protected property interest. The special, quasi-public nature of insurance and the vulnerable position of the insured justify imposing tort liability to remedy such oppressive conduct and allow for the recovery of damages for emotional distress and punitive damages.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in California law, establishing the tort of insurance bad faith. It fundamentally shifted the legal landscape by holding that an insurer's wrongful denial of benefits is not merely a breach of contract, but an independent tort. This allows plaintiffs to recover extra-contractual damages, including compensation for emotional distress and, most significantly, punitive damages, which are unavailable in contract actions. The decision created a powerful deterrent against insurers using their superior economic position to wrongfully deny or delay valid claims, thereby protecting vulnerable insureds from oppressive tactics.
Unlock the full brief for Fletcher v. Western National Life Insurance