“Reverse” Bad Faith – Insurers Can Actually Recover for an Insured’s Bad Faith in Bringing a Lawsuit
Those who have worked in the insurance industry are familiar with threats of lawsuits alleging bad faith, and many have actually been involved in such lawsuits seeking bad faith penalties. What may be less-known is a provision in the Tennessee Code that actually allows insurance carriers to bring suit against the insured for bad faith. That statute provides as follows:
In the event it is made to appear to the court or jury trying the cause that the action of the policyholder in bringing the suit was not in good faith, and recovery under the policy is not had, the policyholder shall be liable to the insurance company, corporation, firm, or person in a sum not exceeding twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the loss claimed under the policy; provided, that the liability, within the limits prescribed, shall, in the discretion of the court or jury trying the cause, be measured by the additional expense, loss, or injury inflicted upon the defendant by reason of the suit.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-106. Based upon the plain language of the statute, if an insured brings an action against the carrier, deemed not to be in good faith, and the insured does not recover under the policy, the insured is instead liable to the insurance company. Up to 25% of the amount of loss claimed by the insured may be recovered, but the amount is in the discretion of the court or jury. Id. Any award is measured by the additional expenses, loss or injury caused to the insurance company because of the suit. Id.
The case of Harrison v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co., 145 S.W.2d 1023 (1940), makes it clear the insurer’s rights under T.C.A. § 56-7-106 are vested at the time of the insured’s action, and becomes an actual part of the controversy. Id. at 1024. No independent action by the insurance company is required. Id. Even if an insured’s claim is determined by a court to void, such a determination does not prevent the carrier from seeking the penalty, because the carrier’s right is vested at the moment the insured files his complaint. Adams v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 898 S.W.2d 216, 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
An example of conduct amounting to insured bad-faith can be found in the Harrison case noted above. In that case, the insured:
at the time he instituted this suit knew that [insurance company] was not in any wise indebted to him; that he had some months previously been paid every cent that was due him upon any and all policies in which the plaintiff may have had an interest, and had no reasonable basis for expecting the obtaining of a judgment in his favor.
Harrison at 1025. At least one court, however, found that officers of a corporation did not act in bad faith when acting on advice of counsel to bring suit. World Secret Serv. Ass’n v. Travelers Indem. Co., 396 S.W.2d 848, 854 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1965).
Awarding this “reverse” bad faith penalty is completely up to the judge or jury hearing the case. The few cases where the penalty was discussed demonstrate the key to making the award is based upon the insured’s instituting an action with knowledge that there is no basis to recover under the policy. While recovery is unavailable for an “honest” dispute, the penalty is a tool that can be used by insurers when faced with frivolous legal actions by insureds where there is absolutely no basis for an insured’s claim and results in the carrier incurring costs and expenses. Because the carrier has no “reverse” bad faith claim until the insured actually files suit, this remedy is not available simply where the insured makes a frivolous claim under a policy of insurance.