Evidence of Bad Faith

Unreasonable Claim Handling Practices

Evidence of bad faith often emerges through documented patterns of unreasonable claim handling. Excessive and unexplained delays in processing or investigating claims, particularly when basic information has been provided, suggest potential bad faith. Multiple adjuster reassignments without progress indicate deliberate stalling tactics rather than legitimate investigation. Repeated requests for already-submitted documentation create administrative obstacles designed to frustrate claimants. Communication blackouts where adjusters become unreachable or fail to return calls for extended periods suggest systematic avoidance rather than professional handling. These procedural irregularities, especially when documented through correspondence logs and recorded conversations, provide compelling evidence that the insurer deliberately obstructed the claims process.

Improper Investigation Techniques

Deficient or biased investigation methods frequently indicate bad faith conduct. Selective evidence gathering that focuses exclusively on information supporting denial while ignoring contrary facts demonstrates investigative bias. Hiring experts with known predispositions toward claim denial rather than objective analysis suggests predetermined outcomes. Ignoring important evidence or interviewing important witnesses before drawing conclusions reveals investigative carelessness. Ignoring or rejecting expert opinions that support coverage while accepting similar-quality opinions supporting denial shows a deliberate imbalance. Documented by claim file notes, correspondence, and expert testimony, these investigation shortcomings show the insurer failed to meet its duty to fairly and properly assess the claim.

Misrepresentation of Policy Provisions

Insurers demonstrating bad faith often misrepresent policy language to justify denials. Citing exclusions clearly inapplicable to the specific claim circumstances indicates deliberate misinterpretation. Omitting discussion of coverage provisions directly relevant to the claim suggests intentional concealment. Applying exclusions without explaining how they specifically relate to claim facts demonstrates evasive reasoning. Inconsistent interpretations of identical policy language across different claims reveal arbitrary rather than principled decision-making. These misrepresentations, proven through policy language analysis and comparison with industry standards, demonstrate the insurer didn't honestly evaluate coverage obligations.

Financial Incentive Evidence

Documentation revealing improper financial motivations provides powerful bad-faith evidence. Internal communications or performance evaluations rewarding adjusters for maintaining low claim payments suggest institutional bias. Goals, quotas, or targets for claim denials or payment reductions demonstrate prioritizing profits over contractual obligations. Third-party consultant arrangements where compensation increases with claim savings create inherent conflicts of interest. These financial incentives, discovered through internal document production during litigation, reveal systemic motivations corrupting claim decisions.

Pattern and Practice Documentation

Evidence establishing that challenged conduct represents company policy rather than isolated error strengthens bad faith claims. Similar improper treatment of multiple policyholders with comparable claims suggests institutional practices rather than individual mistakes. Internal guidelines, training materials, or procedures encouraging restrictive claim handling indicate systematic approaches rather than case-specific decisions. Regulatory actions, consent orders, or previous bad faith findings involving similar conduct demonstrate ongoing institutional behavior. This pattern evidence, obtained through the discovery of company records and regulatory documents, establishes that bad faith conduct reflects corporate culture rather than isolated adjuster error.