For an accident victim that has submitted a personal injury claim, a demonstration of bad faith by the insurance company that has received the same claim could emerge during the anticipated investigation.
Rules on introducing a charge of bad faith
A dissatisfied claimant could make such a charge against an insurance company that had failed to come forward with any good reason for the denial of a claim. By the same token, a claimant could make such a charge against an insurance company that had acted to delay progress in an ongoing claims process.
At no time does a charge of bad faith equate with the ability to actually prove “bad faith.” The legal system has outlined the procedure for proving a “bad faith” charge that has been made against an insurance agency.
In order to prove such a charge, a claimant would need to offer evidence for one of these 4 actions:
The insurance company did not carry out a proper investigation of the submitted claim. The details on the improper procedure are not clear. Was any investigative procedure started? Had that same procedure even been considered, or planned for?
The insurance agency missed or ignored the facts that had come to light during an effort to carry out a proper investigation. An equally liable action would be that of hiding any uncovered facts from the claimant.
The insurer had overseen an inadequate investigation, or had failed to arrange for satisfactory completion of the investigative stage of the claims process. The insurance company had failed to comply with state regulations.
How could any claimants that had offered the required evidence be rewarded for their efforts?
Those same victims would receive the money that had been requested originally, in order to cover the cost of the reported damages. In addition, the same victims could receive a payment that was supposed to cover the cost of any consequential damage, such as the need to hire a personal injury lawyer in Monterey Park.
Why do victims of an insurer’s bad faith practices receive 2 monetary rewards?
When the victim’s original claim had been presented, the claimant hoped to get back to the financial position that he or she was in before the damaging accident.
After suffering the effects of the insurance company’s tactics, the victim’s position changed. Consequently, the repositioned victim required a larger amount of money, in order to return to his/her original position.
The insurance company could be asked to furnish both sums of money. One sum would cover the cost of the damages that were caused by one of the company’s policyholders. The other sum would cover the expenses created by an effort to deal with the unanticipated and bad tactics.