SALT LAKE CITY, Jan. 25 – A Utah federal judge has dismissed bad faith claims against Travelers on grounds that the insurer’s position on coverage of a roofing damage claim following a windstorm was “fairly debatable.” In Pheasantbrook Homeowners Ass’n. v. Travelers, U.D. District Judge David Nuffer ruled that even if an insurer is ultimately incorrect on a coverage position, it should escape bad faith liability if the position it took is “fairly debatable.”
Judge Nuffer reviewed applicable case law, including Utah decisions which have held that an insurer’s engagement of an expert to help assess the nature and extent of covered damage for a given loss could provide a defense to bad faith liability. He ruled that the denial of certain portions of the windstorm claim in reliance on an expert engaged by the insurer, even if the expert was compensated, created legitimate factual questions regarding which portions of the roofing repairs were attributable to the windstorm, as opposed to betterment, maintenance, or a need to replace the roofing regardless of the wind damage.
Such legitimate factual questions regarding the insured’s proposal for roof replacement created a “fairly debatable” dispute about the amount owed, causing the judge to grant Travelers’ summary judgment motion as to the bad faith claim.