The insureds were asserting that the court should find that the carrier acted in bad faith on the basis of the insureds’ prevailing on their legal argument with respect to coverage.
The court found that the bad faith claim failed because the carrier’s position, while unsuccessful on the coverage issue, was reasonable under the circumstances presented.
The court noted that “[t]he crux of the Parties’ disagreement - - whether the [vehicle] was added to the [insureds’] policy by endorsement or by the “newly acquired vehicle” clause of the policy - - was resolved in the [insureds’] favor by this Court, but the authority for both Parties’ positions was reasonably supported by the cases they respectively cited.”
Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the carrier on the bad faith claim presented by the Plaintiff.
To view this case online, please click this LINK.