Universe Life Insurance v. Giles
950 S.W.2d 48, 1997 Tex. LEXIS 84, 40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 810 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer breaches its common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying or delaying payment of a claim if the insurer knew or should have known that it was reasonably clear that the claim was covered. Punitive damages for bad faith are only appropriate when the insurer was actually aware its actions would likely cause extraordinary harm beyond typical contract breach, such as death, grievous physical injury, or financial ruin.
Facts:
- Ida Mae Giles, age 61, obtained health insurance from The Universe Life Insurance Company.
- About three months after acquiring the policy, Giles underwent heart bypass surgery.
- Universe denied Giles’s claim for her medical bills, asserting that her heart condition was a pre-existing condition not covered by the policy, based on hospital records indicating a history of chest pain, heart disease, and treatment with cholesterol-lowering drugs.
- Giles asked her physicians to clarify the medical records provided to Universe.
- Her physicians explained that the statement of a two-three year history of chest pain was a transcription error and that she had only experienced chest pain for two-three weeks before surgery, all after the policy was issued.
- Giles’s physicians also clarified that the drugs Mevacor and Lorelco were prescribed for hypercholesteremia (high cholesterol), not heart problems, and her 'positive history of heart disease' referred to family history, not personal history.
- Universe never questioned the credibility of Giles's physicians' clarifications but persisted in denying her claim for approximately seven additional months.
- About ten months after the surgery, Giles's attorney sent a demand letter, after which Universe paid most of the medical bills ($48,074.51) but refused to pay approximately $2,000 in charges it deemed unreasonable and refused to pay any attorney fees.
Procedural Posture:
- Ida Mae Giles sued The Universe Life Insurance Company (and two related companies, AIA Insurance, Inc. and AIA Services Corporation, collectively 'Universe') in district court, alleging breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
- A jury found Universe had breached its duty and awarded Giles $75,000 for mental anguish and $500,000 in punitive damages.
- The district court rendered judgment in favor of Giles based on the jury's verdict.
- Universe appealed to the court of appeals, which reduced the punitive damages award to $300,000 (applying statutory limits) but otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- Universe (appellant) then sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas (this Court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an insurer breach its common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying or delaying payment of a claim when its liability has become "reasonably clear"? 2. Is evidence of an insured's distress, without evidence of extreme risk of death, grievous physical injury, or financial ruin, sufficient to support a punitive damages award for bad faith?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Spector
1. Yes, an insurer breaches its common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying or delaying payment of a claim if the insurer knew or should have known that it was reasonably clear that the claim was covered. The Court adopts the “reasonably clear” standard from the Texas Insurance Code to unify common-law and statutory bad faith, believing it provides a workable, positive formulation that eliminates conflicts with no-evidence review. The Court rejects the “fairly debatable” standard because it also presents review difficulties. Whether an insurer's liability became "reasonably clear" remains a question for the fact-finder, not the court, in line with constitutional jury trial rights. 2. No, evidence of an insured's distress, without evidence of extreme risk of death, grievous physical injury, or financial ruin, is not sufficient to support a punitive damages award for bad faith. Applying the standard clarified in Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel, the Court found no evidence that Universe’s claims decision was likely to cause the type of extreme risk required for punitive damages, despite Giles's distress from repeated inquiries about payment.
Concurring - Justice Hecht
1. Yes, an insurer breaches its duty of good faith and fair dealing if its liability for a claim becomes "reasonably clear," and it denies or delays payment, but this should be treated as a question of law. Justice Hecht agrees with the judgment (bad faith occurred) but argues that the majority's adoption of the "reasonably clear" standard is merely semantic and does not resolve the underlying problem of applying a "no-evidence" standard of review to a negative proposition (absence of reasonable basis) or a standard that inherently requires weighing evidence. He contends that for bad faith to be a viable tort, the determination of whether liability is "reasonably clear" should be a question of law for the court to define, providing predictability and categorizing culpable conduct, rather than leaving it to juries. 2. No, there was no evidence supporting punitive damages, as the Moriel standard requires actual awareness of an extreme risk of extraordinary harm. Justice Hecht agrees with the majority on the reversal of punitive damages but suggests that without clear definitions for bad faith liability, it is problematic to create a tort that is then limited by making damages 'rarely provable'.
Concurring - Justice Enoch
1. Yes, an insurer breaches its common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing when it denies or delays payment of a claim for which there is no reasonable basis, but the Court's extensive review and "clarification" of the standard are unnecessary. Justice Enoch agrees with the outcome (bad faith occurred) but asserts that the cases Lyons v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. and National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Dominguez already provided adequate guidance for conducting a "no evidence" review in bad faith cases. He argues that the new "reasonably clear" standard is merely a semantic recasting of the existing "no reasonable basis" standard and does not fundamentally alter the character of proof or review needed. He further stresses that whether a basis for denial of coverage is reasonable is inherently a fact question for the jury. 2. No, there was no evidence to support the punitive damages award. Justice Enoch concurs with the Court's judgment on punitive damages, implying that the established standards for such awards were correctly applied in reversing this portion of the damages.
Analysis:
This case is significant for the Texas Supreme Court's formal adoption of the "reasonably clear" standard for common-law bad faith claims, aligning it with statutory language. While the majority intended this to clarify the legal landscape, the strong concurring opinions highlight ongoing judicial disagreement regarding the application of "no-evidence" review and whether bad faith should be a question of fact or law. The strict application of the Moriel standard for punitive damages, requiring proof of extreme risk of catastrophic harm, signals a continued effort to limit substantial extra-contractual damage awards in bad faith cases, potentially reducing the 'judicial lottery' effect criticized by some.
