MARCH 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: NO BAD FAITH WHERE NO COVERAGE DUE (New Jersey Appellate Division)
This case involved a denial of coverage on the basis that the insured failed to get his car physically inspected after purchase. The court affirmed a grant of summary judgment on the coverage claim, and on the bad faith claim.
As to the bad faith claim, an “insured who alleges bad faith by the insurer must establish the merits of his or her claim for benefits. If there is a valid question of coverage, i.e., the claim is ‘fairly debatable,’ the insurer bears no liability for bad faith.” The court found the claim at issue was “fairly debatable”. The insurer was entitled to deny the claim outright. It had “complied with all notice and suspension procedures provided in the regulations. It did not have discretion to provide coverage when plaintiff did not comply and have the vehicle inspected.”
