Business Law:Roehl Transp., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 49 (Supreme Court of Wisconsin)
Roehl Transp., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 49 (Supreme Court of Wisconsin)
Issue
In the original case, Mary, a motorist, sued a case against ABC Inc. after being hit by Travis Trucker, a truck driver at the company. On the other hand, the case between Roehl Transport Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Inc involves an accident where one of the Rhoel Transport’s trucks hit a car driven by Arthur Groth. In both cases, the issue involves the misconduct of insurance companies. In both cases, the insurance companies fail to settle for a lower amount. Additionally, in both scenarios, the complainants both sue against the insurance companies claiming their actions were done in bad faith. The actions of the insurance companies caused the complainants to incur more liabilities, thus causing their deductible limits to be utilized in the payment.
Rule
In the case of Roehl vs. Liberty Insurance, the jury ruled in favor of Roehl. According to the jury, Liberty Insurance was liable for handling Groth’s claim and that its failure to carry out its duties demonstrated bad faith.
Analysis
In both cases, the complainants sue the companies for failing to perform their duties in compensating the claims by the victims of the accidents. In both cases, the insurance companies failed to act in good faith, thus causing both Roehl and ABC companies to utilize all their deductable limits in settling the claim. In the original case, Stay safe insurance refuses to settle for an amount exceeding $100,000, thus forcing ABC company to settle the rest of the amount reaching $250,000. In the case against Stay safe, the complainant, ABC Inc sues for compensation of $250,00 and the attorney’s fees. Since the two cases involve an act of bad faith by the insurance companies, they are likely to have the same decisions. Therefore, the original case would be decided in favor of ABC. In this case, the company would be compensated in the same way as Roehl Transport Inc.. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Conclusion
In both cases, Roehl vs. Liberty and ABC vs. Stay safe; the complainants have a good chance of winning the case. The insurance companies were liable for settling the claims by the victims in good faith. However, the insurance companies failed to perform their duties to the interest of the companies. As such, their actions caused the insured companies to utilize their deductible limits to settle the claim against them. Therefore, the insurance companies are liable for compensating the insured companies for the expenses incurred in the case.
Lakeside Foods, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 Wisc. App. LEXIS 562 (Court of Appeals Wisconsin)
Issue
The original case ABC vs. Staysafe insurance involves a claim against an act of bad faith by the insurance company. On the other hand, the case filed by Lakeside against Liberty insurance involved an act of bad faith where the insurance company refused to offer a timely and full defense. In this case, the insured company sued against the insurance company for untimely defense, the refusal for control of the counsel, and failure to settle the attorney’s fees. In both cases, the defendants are faced with charges due to their failure to perform their duties, causing the insured companies to incur charges.
Rule
In the case between Lakeside and Liberty insurance, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment as a result of the bad faith claim.
Analysis
In both cases, the complainants sue the insurance companies for failing to perform their duties as required. In the original case involving ABC inc, the insurance company fails to pay the required amount to the victim. In the second case, involving Lakeside, the insurance company fails to respond to the defense tender on time. Additionally, it fails to grant Lakeside control over its counsel. As such, the insurance companies acted in bad faith and were therefore liable for compensating the two insured companies d for the charges incurred in defense of the claims against them.
Conclusion
In both cases presented, the complainants sue the insurance companies for their failure to perform their duties. As a result of their actions, the insured companies are forced to pay additional charges to compensate for the claims made by the victims. The actions of the insurance companies in these cases portray an act of bad faith. The cases, therefore, concluded in favor of the insured companies, Lakeside, and ABC.
Reference
Roehl Transp., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 49 (Supreme Court of Wisconsin)
Lakeside Foods, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 Wisc. App. LEXIS 562 (Court of Appeals Wisconsin)