Insight
Louisiana Legislature Enacts Changes to Bad Faith Statutes
Published on: October 14, 2024
The Louisiana Legislature recently enacted Act 3, which reflects an effort to address the handling of insurance claims in Louisiana – particularly for catastrophic losses – and define ambiguities in the law. This blog addresses changes to Louisiana’s “bad faith” statutes. Broadly, Act 3 amends and enacts new sections of La. R.S. 22:1892, repeals La. R.S. 22:1973, and enacts La. R.S. 1892.2 to address situations involving catastrophic losses.
Prior Louisiana Bad Faith Statutes – La. R.S. 22:1892 and La. R.S. 22:1973
Previously, La. R.S. 22:1892(A) stated an insurer must:
- Issue payment to an insured within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss;
- Pay the amount of a bona fide third-party’s property damage or reasonable medical expenses within 30 days of a written settlement agreement;
- Initiate loss adjustment within 14 days of notice of a non-catastrophic loss or within 30 days of receipt of notice of a catastrophic loss;
- Make a written offer to settle property damage within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.
If an insurer did not follow the requirements of La. R.S. 22:1892(A), the insurer could be required to pay the insured the amount owed under the policy plus a penalty if the insured established that the insurer’s conduct was “arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause.” Courts defined this standard as “vexatious” and without justification. The penalty is calculated as either 50% of the amount owed under the policy or 50% of the difference between the amount owed and a partial tender made by the insurer, if any. Additionally, if the insured established entitlement to the penalty, the insured could also recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the insurer.
Former La. R.S. 22:1973 codified an insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing. It set an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly and promptly and make reasonable efforts to settle claims with the insured, a claimant or both. This general duty of good faith and fair dealing applies only to insureds.^ The statute also outlined six prohibits acts that, if knowingly performed, constituted a violation of the statute. Five of these six prohibited acts applied to both insureds and third-party claimants.^*
If an insured proved a knowing violation of La. R.S. 22:1973, the insurer could be required to pay the amount owed under the policy, damages caused by the insurer’s violation of the statute and a penalty of up to 200% of the damages that the insured or claimant incurred as a result of the breach. Such damages were separate and distinct from the amounts owed under the policy but could extend to anything for which the insured could establish a causal link.˚̃
Revisions to La. R.S. 22:1892
The new revisions enact several important changes. While the text of the new statute should be considered when evaluating any pending or potential claims, a summary is provided here.
- Time Delays
Under amended and re-enacted La. R.S. 22:1892(A), insurers must generally adhere to the time delays and conduct outlined under the previous law. Under La. R.S. 22:1892.2, for catastrophic events at residential properties, an insurer’s payment is owed within 60 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss. For catastrophic losses at non-residential properties, the statute provides an insurer’s payment is owed within 90 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.
Another exception exists when an insurer initiates loss adjustment before the 14-day or 30-day deadline. If this occurs, the insurer’s obligation to issue a written offer to settle is extended by the number of days the insurer initiates loss adjustment before the deadline.
- Reciprocal Duty of Good Faith
Under the new law, La. R.S. 22:1973 is repealed and the general duty of “good faith and fair dealing” owed by an insurer to its insured and the prohibited insurer conduct previously outlined in La. R.S. 22:1973 is now encompassed within §1892.
The new statute also provides that the insured, the claimant or the representative of the insured/claimant owes the duty of good faith and fair dealing. If an insured fails to comply with affirmative duties under the policy, misrepresents pertinent facts and coverages, submits an estimate that lacks a basis in the evidence or the policy, then the insured’s conduct may be considered in determining whether the insurer’s conduct warrants an award of penalties.
- Cure Period
For catastrophic losses, the new law states suits may only be brought if the insured first provides the insurer with “cure period notice.” This notice requires that the insured provide the insurer with written notice of the violation, a written formal demand and notice of the facts and circumstances of the dispute. After this notice, several options exist:
- The insurer can pay the demand in full (along with the insured’s actual expenses and attorney fees no greater than 20%) within 60 days of the notice and extinguish any further cause of action.
- The insurer can issue partial payment on the claim within 60 days of the notice and reduce the penalty owed, if any, by half.
- The insurer can request additional information, but this does not extend the insurer’s other deadlines.
- Revised Penalty Provisions
The amendments also modify the recoverable penalty. The statute specifies the calculation of the penalty based on the type of violation, the type of property and the type of loss event. Generally, the insured is no longer entitled to recover all damages sustained by a breach of the statute: now the claimant may only recover “proven economic damages.” Notably, the potential for a penalty of up to 200% of the damages sustained as a result of the breach no longer exists.
- Timing
The law also formalizes and codifies the prescriptive period for claims brought under La. R.S. 22:1892 or La. R.S. 22:1892.2 to two years.
References:
^Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 1995-2895 (La. 5/20/97) 694 So.2d 184.
* Team Contractors, L.L.C. v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C., 780 Fed.Appx. 132 (5th Cir. 2019).
˚Durio v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 2011-0084 (La. 10/24/11) 74 So.3d 1159.
̃ Audubon Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, APMC v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 2009-0007 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/21/10) 38 So.3d 963.
Disclaimer
Keogh Cox & Wilson, Ltd. provides this blog as a public service for general information only. The materials contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments or even express the opinion of all or even most of Keogh Cox attorneys. Such material does not constitute legal advice or form any attorney-client relationship. Keogh Cox and all contributing author(s) expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this Web site and Blog and expect that no reliance will be made upon the information provided.
