Hart Const. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.

21 Citing cases

  1. Tibert v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co.

    2012 N.D. 81 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 28 times

    We have formulated the duty to defend to require a liability insurer to defend an underlying action against its insured if the allegations in the complaint give rise to potential liability or a possibility of coverage under the insurance policy.Schultze v. Continental Ins. Co., 2000 ND 209, ¶ 8, 619 N.W.2d 510 (citations omitted); see also Decker, at ¶ 14;Fetch v. Quam, 2001 ND 48, ¶ 14, 623 N.W.2d 357;Hart Constr. Co. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 384, 389 (N.D.1994); Kyllo v. Northland Chem. Co., 209 N.W.2d 629, 634 (N.D.1973). When several claims are made against the insured in the underlying action, the insurer has a duty to defend the entire lawsuit if there is potential liability or a possibility of coverage for any one of the claims.

  2. Pennzoil Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.

    50 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 1995)   Cited 4 times
    Applying North Dakota law

    Under North Dakota law, we also construe USF G's insurance policy de novo. See Hart Constr. Co. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 384, 388 (N.D. 1994). II.

  3. Hanson v. Cincinnati Life Ins. Co.

    1997 N.D. 230 (N.D. 1997)   Cited 21 times
    Stating that there is no waiver of an insurer's right to treat a policy as lapsed for nonpayment of a premium "if the insurer conditionally accepts and retains a late premium subject to reinstatement"

    [¶ 29] We have also held an insurer has a duty to act fairly and in good faith in its contractual relationship with its policyholders. Hart Const. Co. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 384, 391 (N.D. 1994); Bender v. Time Ins. Co., 286 N.W.2d 489 (N.D. 1979); Corwin Chrysler-Plymouth v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 279 N.W.2d 638, 643 (N.D. 1979). The test for bad faith is whether the insurer acts unreasonably in handling an insured's claim by failing to compensate the insured, without proper cause, for a loss covered by the policy.

  4. Selective Way Ins. Co. v. CSC Gen. Contractors, Inc.

    994 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    "The mere fact that an insurer's position is held invalid by the courts does not necessarily mean it acted in bad faith." Hart Const. Co. v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. , 514 N.W.2d 384, 391 (N.D. 1994). "The test for an insurer's bad faith is whether the ‘insurer has acted unreasonably in handling an insured's claim by failing to compensate the insured, without proper cause, for a loss covered by the policy.’ "

  5. O'Keeffe v. Cont'l Cas. Co.

    No. 20-3014 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2020)

    Each of those claims requires that there be a breach of contract. See Hart Constr. Co. v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 384, 391-92 (N.D. 1994); Martin v. Ill. Farmers Ins., 742 N.E.2d 848, 857-58 (Ill. Ct. App. 2000).

  6. Johnson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

    Civil No. 3:07-cv-87 (D.N.D. Mar. 19, 2009)

    The gravamen of the test for bad faith is whether the insurer acts unreasonably in handling an insured's claim. Fetch v. Quam, 2001 ND 48, ¶ 12, 623 N.W.2d 357, 361. Whether an insurer has acted in bad faith is ordinarily a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. Hartman, 2003 ND 24, ¶ 12, 656 N.W.2d at 681;Fetch, 2001 ND 48, ¶ 12, 623 N.W.2d at 361; see also Hart Constr. Co. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 384, 391 (N.D. 1994) ("Whether an insurer has acted in bad faith in refusing to pay amounts claimed under an insurance policy is a question of fact."). An insurer acts unreasonably by failing to compensate the insured for a loss covered by the policy, unless the insurer has a proper cause for refusing payment.

  7. Primewood, Inc. v. Roxan GMBH Co.

    Case No. A3-97-28 (D.N.D. May. 27, 1999)

    Nonetheless, release of an employee does not release an employer from claims of direct liability for its "own wrongful conduct independent of any theory of vicarious liability." Hart Constr. Co. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 384, 391 (N.D. 1994) (quoting Zimprich v. North Dakota Harvestore Systems, Inc., 419 N.W.2d 912, 913 (N.D. 1988)). Thus, the amended complaint must be examined for direct claims against the Keimkonzept defendants.

  8. Pavlicek v. Am. Steel Sys.

    2022 N.D. 35 (N.D. 2022)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    , when a conflict exists between the provisions of an insurance policy and an attached endorsement, the provisions of the endorsement prevail. Hart Constr. Co. v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 384, 391 (N.D. 1994). Therefore, the CGL policy provides $2,000,000 of aggregate coverage for damage resulting from an accident or occurrence, including during products-completed operations.

  9. Fire Ins. Exch. v. Oltmanns

    2018 UT 10 (Utah 2018)   Cited 14 times
    Distinguishing the relationship between the insurer and the insured in the context of first-party and third-party claims

    (alteration in original) (citation omitted) ). But see Hart Constr. Co. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 514 N.W.2d 384, 391 (N.D. 1994) (applying reasonableness standard to whether an insurer breached its duties to an insured in seeking a declaratory judgment in connection with a third-party lawsuit). Courts also advance different approaches to the duty to defend.

  10. Fire Ins. Exch. v. Oltmanns

    2017 UT 81 (Utah 2017)

    (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). But see Hart Constr. Co. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 384, 391 (N.D. 1994) (applying reasonableness standard to whether an insurer breached its duties to an insured in seeking a declaratory judgment in connection with a third-party lawsuit). Courts also advance different approaches to the duty to defend.