Lexplug logoLexplug

Pavia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
82 N.Y.2d 445, 626 N.E.2d 24, 605 N.Y.S.2d 208 (1993)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish a prima facie case of insurance bad faith, a plaintiff must prove the insurer's conduct constituted a 'gross disregard' of the insured's interests. An insurer's failure to accept a claimant's time-restricted settlement offer while reasonably investigating potential defenses does not, by itself, constitute such a gross disregard.


Facts:

  • On April 19, 1985, Carmine Rosato, a 16-year-old with a learner's permit, lost control of his mother's car while driving at night with Frank Pavia as a passenger.
  • The resulting collision severely injured Pavia, rendering him a hemiplegic.
  • During his deposition on June 9, 1987, Rosato suggested potential new defenses, including an emergency situation, the existence of new witnesses, and Pavia's failure to wear a seatbelt.
  • On June 26, 1987, Pavia’s counsel sent a letter to Rosato's insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, demanding the full $100,000 policy limit and requiring acceptance within 30 days.
  • State Farm did not respond within the 30-day period, as it was actively investigating the new defenses suggested by Rosato.
  • By November 1987, State Farm's investigation into the new leads proved fruitless.
  • On January 7, 1988, after its internal committee authorized the payment, State Farm offered the full $100,000 policy limit to Pavia.
  • Pavia’s counsel rejected the offer as 'too late,' after which the Rosatos assigned their potential bad-faith claim against State Farm to Pavia.

Procedural Posture:

  • Frank Pavia sued Carmine Rosato and others in New York Supreme Court (the trial court) for personal injuries from a car accident.
  • A jury returned a verdict for Pavia for $6,322,000, finding Rosato 85% at fault.
  • The trial court reduced the verdict to $5,000,000, and the Appellate Division further reduced it to $3,880,000.
  • The Rosatos assigned their cause of action for bad faith against their insurer, State Farm, to Pavia.
  • The Rosatos and Pavia sued State Farm in New York Supreme Court for bad faith.
  • A jury found that State Farm acted in gross disregard of the Rosatos' interests, and the trial court entered a judgment against State Farm for the excess verdict amount.
  • State Farm, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
  • State Farm, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.

Locked

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 failure to respond to a time-restricted settlement demand within the policy limits, while it is still investigating potential defenses recently raised by its insured, constitute bad faith under the 'gross disregard' standard?


Opinions:

Majority - Titone, J.

No. An insurer's failure to meet a claimant's settlement deadline while investigating potential defenses is not bad faith. To establish a prima facie case of bad faith, a plaintiff must show the insurer's conduct constituted a 'gross disregard' of the insured's interests, which requires a deliberate or reckless failure to place the insured's interests on equal footing with its own. Here, State Farm's decision to investigate new information provided by its own insured, Carmine Rosato, was a reasonable exercise of its duty to defend, not a conscious or knowing indifference to the Rosatos' potential for excess liability. Permitting a claimant's unilaterally imposed timetable to dictate the bad-faith inquiry would encourage the manufacturing of bad-faith claims and prevent insurers from conducting thorough investigations. Although State Farm's investigation ultimately proved the new defenses were not viable, its delay in offering the policy limits was a result of this good-faith investigation, not a reckless disregard for its insured's interests.



Analysis:

This decision formally establishes the 'gross disregard' standard for insurance bad faith claims in New York, positioning it between mere negligence and a 'sinister motive' or dishonest intent. The ruling provides significant protection to insurers, affirming their right to conduct a thorough investigation of a claim, even when faced with a time-sensitive settlement demand. It prevents plaintiffs from 'manufacturing' bad faith claims by imposing arbitrary deadlines and clarifies that a reasonable delay for investigation, prompted by the insured's own statements, will not expose an insurer to liability for a judgment in excess of policy limits.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Pavia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"