Lafauci v. Jenkins
844 So. 2d 19, 2003 WL 122582 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A liability insurer acts in bad faith and is liable for a judgment exceeding its policy limits when it fails to accept a reasonable settlement offer, fails to keep its insured informed of settlement negotiations and potential excess liability, and incorrectly denies coverage based on a misinterpretation of its own policy.
Facts:
- On January 5, 2000, Randall J. Jenkins was operating a motor vehicle when he initiated a left turn into the path of a vehicle driven by Monica Ann Lafauci, causing a collision.
- At the scene of the accident, Jenkins exhibited signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes and the smell of alcohol, and later refused to submit to a breath test.
- As a result of the collision, Lafauci sustained multiple injuries, including a non-displaced fracture of her right patella (kneecap).
- Jenkins was insured by Illinois National Insurance Company under a policy with a bodily injury liability limit of $10,000.
- Illinois National investigated the claim, received documentation of Lafauci's injuries and medical expenses, and made settlement offers of $5,000 and later $5,500.
- Lafauci's attorney made a settlement demand for the $10,000 policy limit, which Illinois National rejected.
- Illinois National did not timely communicate Lafauci's policy-limit settlement demand to Jenkins or inform him of his potential exposure to a judgment in excess of his policy limits for nearly eight months.
Procedural Posture:
- Monica Ann Lafauci sued Randall J. Jenkins and his insurer, Illinois National Insurance Company, in a Louisiana trial court for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision.
- Jenkins, through his personal attorney, filed an answer and a cross-claim against Illinois National, seeking indemnity for any judgment exceeding his policy limits.
- Illinois National filed a motion and deposited its $10,000 policy limit plus accrued interest into the registry of the court.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Lafauci and against Jenkins, awarding damages totaling $70,686.90.
- The trial court also found in favor of Jenkins on his cross-claim, ordering Illinois National to pay the judgment amount in excess of the policy limit ($60,686.90) plus Jenkins's attorney's fees.
- Illinois National appealed the trial court's judgments to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
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 a liability insurer act in bad faith, making it liable for a judgment in excess of its policy limits, when it fails to accept a reasonable settlement offer, fails to keep its insured informed of potential excess liability, and predicates its claim handling on a misinterpretation of its own policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Gaidry, J.
Yes, a liability insurer acts in bad faith under these circumstances, making it liable for the excess judgment against its insured. Illinois National breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insured, Randall Jenkins, on multiple grounds. The court found the insurer misread its own policy by incorrectly believing it excluded exemplary damages, when a later, controlling Louisiana-specific endorsement had removed that exclusion. This misinterpretation tainted its evaluation of the claim. Furthermore, the insurer failed to accept a reasonable settlement offer within the policy limits despite clear liability and damages likely exceeding the limit. Critically, Illinois National failed to keep its insured informed of the settlement demand and his significant exposure to an excess judgment, depriving him of the opportunity to protect his own interests. The court also held that the insurer's attempt to terminate its duty to defend by depositing the policy limits into the court registry was ineffective because the tender was conditional, incomplete, and occurred after the duty of good faith had already been breached.
Concurring - Kuhn, J.
Justice Kuhn concurred with the majority's judgment without providing a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fiduciary duties an insurer owes to its insured, clarifying that the duty of good faith extends beyond merely evaluating a claim to include accurate policy interpretation and transparent communication. It establishes that an insurer's failure to inform the insured of settlement offers and potential excess liability is a significant factor in a bad faith finding. The case also provides an important precedent on what constitutes a valid tender to terminate the duty to defend, holding that a conditional deposit of policy limits without accrued costs and interest is ineffective. This ruling heightens the standard for insurers in handling claims where an excess judgment is likely, mandating proactive and honest communication with the insured to avoid liability beyond policy limits.
