Bad Faith Insurance Verdict Against Fireman's Fund
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 645
The Supreme Court of the State of Washington, on July 26, 2007 upheld a jury verdict of $750,000 against Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. and it's subsidary National Surety Co. for bad faith insurance practices. Fireman's refused to defend a lawsuit against Dr. Robert C. Woo, a dentist who was sued by a former enployee Tina Alberts who had also been his dental patient.
The suit against Woo which Fireman's Fund refused to defend accused him of outrage, battery, invasion of privacy, false light, public disclosure of private acts, nonpayment of overtime wages, retaliation for requesting payment of overtime wages, medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Alberts worked for Woo as a dental surgical assistant for about five years.
Her family raised potbellied pigs, and she often talked about them at work. She
claimed that over the course of her employment, Woo made several offensive
comments about her pigs. Woo claimed his comments about Alberts' pigs were part
of a "friendly working environment" he encouraged in the office.
The event that precipitated the claim occurred during a procedure Woo agreed
to perform for Alberts to replace two of her teeth with implants. The procedure
required Woo to install temporary partial bridges called "flippers" as spacers until
permanent implants could be installed. When he ordered the
flippers for Alberts' procedure, Woo also ordered a second set of flippers shaped
like boar tusks to play a practical joke on Alberts. While Alberts was under
anesthesia, Woo and his staff removed Alberts' oxygen mask, inserted the boar tusk
flippers in her mouth and took photographs of her, some with her eyes pried open.
After taking the photographs, Woo completed the planned procedure and inserted
the normal flippers.
Woo subsequently had the photographs developed but claims that when he
saw them he concluded they were ugly and should not be shown to Alberts. He also
claimed he told another surgical assistant he thought the photographs were ugly. He
claims that he did not expect his staff to give them to Alberts before talking with
him. However, about a month later, Woo's staff gave Alberts the photographs at a
gathering to celebrate her birthday.
The insurance policy issued to Dr. Woo by the defendants covered him against professional liability, employment practices liability and general liability.
Five months after Alberts filed suit, Fireman's Fund informed Woo that his policy did not cover claims asserted in the lawsuit and refused to defend him.
Dr. Woo hired a lawyer at his own expense and settled with Alberts just prior to trial for $ 250,000.
Woo then filed this insurance bad faith action against Fireman's Fund.
At trial, the jury found that Fireman's Fund had failed to act in good faith and violated Washington's, Consumer Protection Act and awarded Woo $ 750,000. The trial court also awarded attorney's fees and costs and recovery of the $ 250,000 settlement Woo negotiated with Alberts.
The Supreme Court held that Fireman's Fund did have a duty to defend against the professional and genteal liability claims and upheld the entire award by the jury and the trial court.
A large part of the $ 750,000 verdict was based upon Dr. Woo's claim of emotional distress. It is interesting to note that the emotional distress claim was based entirely upon Dr. Woo's testimony. He did not present any medical, psychiatric testimony.
In North Carolina if the trial court finds that the failure to defend under a liability insurance policy is an unfair trade practice, the law requires that the insured will recover three times the jury's verdict plus attorney's fees.
If you feel thtat you have been treated unfairely by an insurance company, fill out the short form on this page and an experienced lawyer will contact you.