Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a certiorari review petitioned by Allstate Insurance Company challenging a circuit court order that upheld a county court's denial of Allstate's motion to dismiss or abate a bad faith claim in a multi-count complaint filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged statutory bad faith failure to settle after Allstate paid less than the claimed damages for vehicle repairs following an accident. The central legal issue was whether the bad faith claim could proceed simultaneously with a breach of contract claim. The circuit court, initially upholding the county court's decision, failed to apply the precedent established in Blanchard, which mandates that a bad faith claim does not accrue until the underlying contractual claim is resolved. The court found that the circuit court improperly relied on Rubio, which was inconsistent with Blanchard and directed a remand to dismiss or abate the bad faith claim until the breach of contract issue is settled. The decision was based on the potential for irreparable harm due to premature discovery access. The court's ruling, supported by Fulmer, A.C.J., and Judges Green and Stringer, granted Allstate's petition, effectively protecting the procedural integrity of bad faith insurance litigation.
Legal Issues Addressed
Accrual of Bad Faith Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that under Blanchard, a bad faith claim does not arise until the underlying contractual claim has been resolved.
Reasoning: Blanchard specifies that a first-party action for insurance benefits must be resolved before a bad faith claim can accrue.
Application of Legal Precedentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The circuit court's reliance on Rubio was misplaced because Blanchard explicitly rejected the reasoning that bad faith claims could not be separated from breach of contract claims.
Reasoning: The circuit court's reliance on Rubio was deemed misplaced as Blanchard explicitly rejected the reasoning in Schimmel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., which had held that bad faith claims could not be separated from breach of contract claims.
Bad Faith Insurance Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the bad faith insurance claim should not proceed until the underlying contractual claim is resolved, as per the precedent set in Blanchard.
Reasoning: The court grants relief, indicating that the bad faith claim should not have been allowed to continue in the current procedural context.
Certiorari Review Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court justified certiorari review by noting that allowing a bad faith claim to proceed prematurely could cause irreparable harm through inappropriate access to discovery.
Reasoning: This could cause irreparable harm, justifying the review.