Reed v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

8 Citing cases

  1. Artigue v. La. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.

    339 So. 2d 880 (La. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 20 times
    Construing La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 22:658

    They may be assessed only where the failure to pay within the 60 day period is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. Headrick v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance Company, 257 La. 1101, 245 So.2d 324 (1971); Reed v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, 302 So.2d 354 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974); Nichols v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Company, 232 La. 856, 95 So.2d 338 (1957). My colleagues concede that defendant did not receive "a formal proof of loss form signed by plaintiff" until January 23, 1975, and that payment of the full amount provided in the policy was made to plaintiff within 60 days (actually, within 54 days) after that date.

  2. Landry v. State Farm Ins. Co.

    529 So. 2d 417 (La. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 17 times

    When there is a dispute as to the nature of the loss, the insurer's refusal to pay the claim is not arbitrary or capricious. Burton v. Foret, supra; Reed v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, 302 So.2d 354 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974). However, an insurer can avoid paying penalties and attorney's fees by unconditionally tendering the undisputed amount of the claim in cases where there is reasonable disagreement over the total amount owed.

  3. Burton v. Foret

    484 So. 2d 753 (La. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times

    When there is a dispute as to the nature of the loss, the insurer's refusal to pay the claim is not arbitrary or capricious. Reed v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 302 So.2d 354 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974). Allstate contends that there was an actual dispute and further that it offered Mr. Burton $40,000 in settlement, as evidence of its good faith, which Mr. Burton refused.

  4. Crawler Sup. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.

    391 So. 2d 1223 (La. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    Where there is a serious dispute as to the nature of the loss, as there was in the instant case, the insurer's refusal to pay the claim is not arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. Reed v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 302 So.2d 354 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974). Thus, we agree with, and affirm, the trial court's denial of penalties and attorney's fees.

  5. Francis v. Government Emp. Ins. Co.

    376 So. 2d 609 (La. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 6 times
    Following DeBose

    The direct examination testimony of plaintiff specifically reveals that a settlement offer was made to — and rejected by — Francis. In Reed v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 302 So.2d 354 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974), plaintiff's home was allegedly damaged by windstorm. Plaintiff's own estimate ($2,734.24) of the damage was challenged by defendants, who contended that only $274 worth of damage was caused by wind, the rest being damaged by forces which were not insured against.

  6. McManus v. Travelers Ins. Co.

    360 So. 2d 207 (La. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 3 times

    4 Cir. 1969); Cotlar v. Gulf Ins. Co., 318 So.2d 923 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1975); Reed v. U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co., 302 So.2d 354 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974); Halford v. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co., 348 So.2d 87 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1977).

  7. Icklone v. Travelers Indem. Co.

    345 So. 2d 202 (La. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 7 times
    In Icklone v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 345 So.2d 202, this Court quoted with approval the well-established rule that the statute in question is penal in nature and must be strictly construed and that penalties may not be assessed merely because the insurer is the unsuccessful litigant in a law suit.

    The more serious question is whether the jury erred in awarding plaintiff penalties and attorney's fees. The applicable law was recently stated by this court in Reed v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, 302 So.2d 354 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974) as follows: "The award of penalties and attorney's fees made by the jury verdict and the judgment of the trial court is based on LSA-R.S. 22:658, which makes insurers liable for penalties and attorney's fees when they fail to pay a claim within 60 days after receipt of proof of loss and demand, provided the failure to pay is found to be arbitrary, capricious or without probable cause.

  8. Baghramain v. MFA Mutual Insurance

    315 So. 2d 849 (La. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 30 times

    They may be assessed only when the failure to pay is arbitrary and capricious. Wells v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, 239 La. 662, 119 So.2d 501 (1960); Headrick v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance Co., 257 La. 1101, 245 So.2d 324 (1971); Reed v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, 302 So.2d 354 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974). Plaintiff contends that having found coverage under the policy, we must determine whether MFA's action in denying the claim was arbitrary or capricious by looking to information MFA had when they denied the claim on June 25, 1974.