Insurance companies have a duty of good faith and fair dealing when handling claims for their insureds, which includes, among other things, a duty to disclose all policy benefits. However, the insurer and the insured occupy adverse positions in a UM/UIM claim until the other motorist's liability is determined by agreement, arbitration, or litigation. After reviewing a UM/UIM demand, insurers must conduct a reasonable investigation, decide the value of the claim, and, if appropriate, convey a settlement offer to the inured. In order to make a settlement offer, the adjuster usually decides a range of value for the claim and makes an opening offer based on that range. What happens when the insured asks the adjuster to disclose the range of value placed on the claim? Does the adjuster need to disclose the settlement authority they have been given on the claim? Is the adjuster’s range of value a final decision as to what the insurer believes the claim is worth, and thus constitutes a policy benefit?
The case which holds the answer to these questions is Voland v. Farmers Ins. Co., 189 Ariz. 448, 451, 943 P.2d 808, 811 (Ct. App. 1997), where the Arizona Court of Appeals held that a carrier’s offer to settle a UM/UIM claim does not constitute an admission as to what the carrier is legally obligated to pay to its insured. In particular, an offer to settle the claim for a certain number “does not mean [the insurer] acknowledged that was the minimal amount the insurer’s own adjuster had evaluated as being owed to the insured.” Id. Instead, a settlement offer on a UM or UIM claim is “simply a proposal to compromise and resolve the claim,” and represents “the carrier’s evaluation or best estimate, at that point in time, of what the trier (here, the arbitrators) might award.” Id.
Since settlement offers do not constitute an admission as to the value of the claim, the settlement range or range of value placed on a UM/UIM claim does not bind the insurer or constitute an admission as to the value of the claim. For example, the court in Voland, found that a settlement offer did not bind the insurer or set a floor as to what the insurer would ultimately have to pay on the claim. It is difficult for anyone, including insurers, to place a value on a bodily injury claim as it is “far from an exact science [and] is no more precise or predictable than throwing darts at a board.” Id. The court further recognized the public policy in favor of settling UM/UIM claims and determined that it was best to avoid requirements “which would have a chilling effect on genuine settlement evaluations and negotiations.” Id.
Based on the holding in Voland, an insurer’s refusal to disclose or offer the high end of the settlement range placed on a UM/UIM claim does not constitute bad faith. There is no statute, regulation, or case in Arizona which requires a UM/UIM insurer to disclose or pay the highest potential settlement value placed on the claim by an adjuster. In fact, if there were such a requirement, it would have a “chilling effect on genuine settlement evaluations and negotiations,” which is exactly what the court was avoiding in Voland. There is a valid reason for placing a settlement value range on a claim and allowing the adjuster to attempt to negotiate the UM/UIM claim withing that range. In order to have meaningful settlement negotiations, both the insurer and the insured must be willing to negotiate, and they cannot do so unless they assign a range to the value of the claim. If a range is not placed on the claim, the adjuster would be forced to place a single number on the value of the claim and refuse any settlement demand above that number. Of course, if either side were forced to disclose the top or bottom of their ranges, there would be no room for reasonable settlement negotiations. As such, as a matter of public policy, and in accordance with Voland, insurers should be permitted to place a range of value on a claim without being put in fear of setting an undisputed value on the claim or being forced to disclose their settlement authority.
Thomas Rubin & Kelley PC is an insurance defense law firm which specializes in the defense of insurance companies and their insureds. We routinely represent insurers in defense of bad faith claims, including cases which involve the issue discussed in this article. Please feel free to contact Michael Kelley at mkelley@trkfirm.com or (602) 604-7505 if you need assistance with your Arizona cases.