the same can be said of plaintiff counsel who advise the insured to file suit against the carrier to compel coverage, and perhaps leverage a settlement, where the policy clearly excludes or otherwise does not cover a loss and the legal precedent supports the carrier’s position. If this is indeed a new trend, perhaps the courts will be more open to reconsider the tort of Reverse Bad Faith, which the majority of states have rejected.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
the same can be said of plaintiff counsel who advise the insured to file suit against the carrier to compel coverage, and perhaps leverage a settlement, where the policy clearly excludes or otherwise does not cover a loss and the legal precedent supports the carrier’s position. If this is indeed a new trend, perhaps the courts will be more open to reconsider the tort of Reverse Bad Faith, which the majority of states have rejected.
A lawyer, not a party to an insurance contract cannot be held liable for the tort of bad faith. This was tried in the 1980’s and failed totally.
On the other hand, an insurer can always sue its coverage counsel for giving it bad advice.
This is just another attempt to put the coverage lawyer and the insurer in an adversary relationship and is nothing new.