"Bad Faith" Breach of Contract by First-Party Insurers
Abstract
Insurers may at times exploit the delay inherent in the civil litigation process to induce needy insureds to settle for less than the amount that the contract promises. The prospect of extracontractual remedies for such "bad faith" at the end of the litigation process can make these tactics unprofitable and thus serve a potentially valuable function. But the remedy may be worse than the problem, as the courts seem to find bad faith on the part of insurers who have genuine and reasonable disputes with their policyholders over the terms of the policy or over factual issues essential to the insured's right to recover. The ability of the courts to identify opportunistic behavior accurately is thus in doubt, and the possibility arises that bad faith doctrine in first-party cases does little to police misconduct while doing much to cause uneconomic increases in the premiums that policyholders must pay.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The time value of money does not motivate insurers to deny claims because prejudgment interest is routinely awarded in breach of contract cases, insureds may routinely challenge wrongful denials of coverage, and a reputation for denying reasonably valid claims will lead to loss of business.
“However, those favoring strict contra proferentem may not be considering the fact that the time value of money does not motivate insurers to deny claims because: 1) prejudgment interest is routinely awarded in breach of contract cases; 2) insureds may routinely challenge wrongful denials of coverage; and 3) a reputation for denying reasonably valid claims will lead to loss of business (Sykes, 1996”
From An analysis of interpretation of insurance contracts: common law versus strict contra proferentem (2023) · cites this paper as Sykes, 1996
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An analysis of interpretation of insurance contracts: common law versus strict contra proferentem
Cole, C., & Henry, R. (2023) · Journal of Insurance Regulation · doi:10.52227/23499.2017 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sykes, A. O.
- Corresponding author
- Sykes, Alan O.
- Venue
- The Journal of Legal Studies
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 405-444
- ISSN
- 0047-2530 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5366
- OpenAlex
- W2014102795
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Legal Studies (publishedVersion)
- bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Insurance and Financial Risk Management
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal principles and applications
- Keywords
- bad faith, insurance contract law, opportunism, premium increases, litigation delays
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review