Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

When Bad Faith Threatens Good Business: Third Circuit Developments in Insurer Bad-Faith Claims

Insurer bad-faith liability &mdash; that is, any liability beyond the coverage or other benefits expressly provided for in the insurance contract &mdash; has been litigated for about a century. For most of that time, judges and jurors applied it sparingly in egregious cases of blatant abuse by insurers. However, the tort of bad faith, by proscribing (among other things) 'unfounded' denials of coverage motivated by 'self-interest,' has always existed in tension with insurers' fundamental duty to maximize enterprise value by, for instance, paying claims only when contractually required. This tension, rarely explicit in the early cases, increasingly is laid bare as policyholders aggressively (if understandably) press doctrinal boundaries in the hope of recovering tort damages in suits on insurance contracts. Two recent cases involving disability benefits from courts within the Third Circuit &mdash; <i>Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Babayan</i>, 430 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2005), and <i>Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins.</i>, 224 F.R.D. 169 (E.D. Pa. 2004) &mdash; illustrate this tension and suggest a need for judicial management to harmonize insurers' conflicting duties.

34 minute readMarch 29, 2006 at 11:08 AM
By
Robert D. Goodman
Steve Vaccaro
When Bad Faith Threatens Good Business: Third Circuit Developments in Insurer Bad-Faith Claims

Insurer bad-faith liability ' that is, any liability beyond the coverage or other benefits expressly provided for in the insurance contract ' has been litigated for about a century. For most of that time, judges and jurors applied it sparingly in egregious cases of blatant abuse by insurers.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.

April 01, 2026

The annals of copyright decisions could provide a reasonably representative catalog of what our culture has been up to over the past 200 years. A Feb. 3 decision from the Southern District of New York is a case in point. It involves a sex-trafficking conspiracy, Tweets attacking a troubled crypto firm, and a claimed transfer of copyright ownership through a restitution order in a criminal case, all over an undercurrent of competing First Amendment and victim-privacy concerns.

April 01, 2026

Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.

April 01, 2026