Loading
Insurance is supposed to reduce uncertainty. When a covered loss happens, policyholders usually expect a timely, fair investigation and a decision that matches the policy and the facts. Bad faith lawsuits often arise when the claim-handling process breaks down, not only when the parties disagree about coverage.
Because insurance bad faith law is highly state-specific, this article uses California as the primary example for the legal framework and citations. In California insurance cases, bad faith claims commonly focus on whether the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits due under the policy or otherwise failed to deal fairly and in good faith.
This guide explains the legal foundation of insurance bad faith claims, the common litigation arguments, and how expert witnesses are often used to support or challenge those allegations.
At a high level, “insurance bad faith” usually refers to allegations that an insurer handled a claim unreasonably. The core idea is not simply that the insurer reached an unfavorable outcome. The focus is whether the insurer’s process was reasonable under the circumstances.
From a claim-file perspective, litigators often evaluate questions like these:
California provides a concrete statutory and case-law example of how “claims practices” concepts appear in litigation. California Insurance Code section 790.03(h) lists unfair claims settlement practices as a regulatory standard.
Several of the themes that show up in bad faith disputes, like misrepresenting policy provisions, delay, and weak investigation, overlap with items in that statutory list. Litigants sometimes reference those concepts as a benchmark for reasonableness, but the statute itself is primarily enforced through regulatory mechanisms and is not itself a private cause of action.
In Moradi-Shalal, the California Supreme Court held the Legislature did not intend Insurance Code section 790.03(h) to create a private civil cause of action, leaving enforcement of that statutory scheme primarily to administrative action by the Insurance Commissioner, while common-law remedies remain available. Parties may still litigate bad faith under other California doctrines and causes of action, but that particular statute is not a private lawsuit vehicle.
NAIC Model Law 900 is often used as a reference point for claims-handling standards regulators care about, even though states adopt and enforce these concepts in different ways, and the model act itself is not written to create a private cause of action.
Insurance bad faith lawsuits often focus on whether an insurer reasonably investigated, evaluated, communicated, and resolved a claim under the governing policy and state law. This article explains common bad faith arguments involving denial, delay, investigation, settlement evaluation, and damages, along with the role of claims-handling, industry-practice, technical, and damages experts in supporting or challenging those allegations.
Contract Disputes
Insurance Claims
Claims Adjuster
Insurance Coverage
Coverage Interpretation
Insurance Contracts
Causation Analysis
Damages Calculations
Insurance is supposed to reduce uncertainty. When a covered loss happens, policyholders usually expect a timely, fair investigation and a decision that matches the policy and the facts. Bad faith lawsuits often arise when the claim-handling process breaks down, not only when the parties disagree about coverage.
Because insurance bad faith law is highly state-specific, this article uses California as the primary example for the legal framework and citations. In California insurance cases, bad faith claims commonly focus on whether the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits due under the policy or otherwise failed to deal fairly and in good faith.
This guide explains the legal foundation of insurance bad faith claims, the common litigation arguments, and how expert witnesses are often used to support or challenge those allegations.
At a high level, “insurance bad faith” usually refers to allegations that an insurer handled a claim unreasonably. The core idea is not simply that the insurer reached an unfavorable outcome. The focus is whether the insurer’s process was reasonable under the circumstances.
From a claim-file perspective, litigators often evaluate questions like these:
California provides a concrete statutory and case-law example of how “claims practices” concepts appear in litigation. California Insurance Code section 790.03(h) lists unfair claims settlement practices as a regulatory standard.
Several of the themes that show up in bad faith disputes, like misrepresenting policy provisions, delay, and weak investigation, overlap with items in that statutory list. Litigants sometimes reference those concepts as a benchmark for reasonableness, but the statute itself is primarily enforced through regulatory mechanisms and is not itself a private cause of action.
In Moradi-Shalal, the California Supreme Court held the Legislature did not intend Insurance Code section 790.03(h) to create a private civil cause of action, leaving enforcement of that statutory scheme primarily to administrative action by the Insurance Commissioner, while common-law remedies remain available. Parties may still litigate bad faith under other California doctrines and causes of action, but that particular statute is not a private lawsuit vehicle.
NAIC Model Law 900 is often used as a reference point for claims-handling standards regulators care about, even though states adopt and enforce these concepts in different ways, and the model act itself is not written to create a private cause of action.
As a practical way to organize the issues, insurance bad faith disputes are often discussed in two buckets. The insurer’s duties and the damages theories can look different depending on whether the claim is first-party or third-party.
First-party disputes involve a policyholder seeking benefits under their own policy. Examples can include property loss claims, health coverage disputes, and disability or life insurance proceeds.
These cases often turn on how the insurer investigated the loss, evaluated coverage and value, and explained the basis for denial, delay, or a payment that the insured contends was unsupported.
In California first-party cases, the core question is often whether the insurer lacked a proper basis for failing to pay or delaying payment, based on what it knew or reasonably should have known at the time.
A simple way to pressure-test a first-party file is to line it up in time order. Do the key decisions look like the result of a careful investigation, or do they look like the insurer decided first and built a record later?
A separate caveat applies to many employer-sponsored health plans: if a claim involves an ERISA-governed plan, ERISA can preempt certain state-law theories, including some bad faith and extra-contractual claims.
For example, Pilot Life is often cited for the point that ERISA can preempt state common law claims based on the alleged improper processing of claims for benefits under an ERISA-governed plan.
Third-party disputes typically arise under liability policies, where the insurer may owe defense and settlement-related duties under the policy and governing law.
In California, Comunale is often cited for the idea that an insurer must give the insured’s interests at least equal consideration in settlement decisions, and that an unwarranted refusal to accept a reasonable settlement within policy limits can expose the insurer to liability beyond those limits.
Johansen is often cited for the rule that when an insurer rejects a reasonable settlement within policy limits because it believes there is no coverage, it does so at its own risk, and a good-faith but incorrect coverage position does not automatically shield it from liability for the resulting excess judgment.
Crisci is also commonly discussed in this settlement-duty setting. In California settlement-duty cases, courts often evaluate reasonableness through a practical lens, including whether a prudent insurer with no policy limits would have accepted the offer.
Once you know whether the dispute is first-party or third-party, the case often narrows to a practical theme: was the insurer’s process reasonable, and does the contemporaneous claim file support what the insurer says it did and why?
Bad faith pleadings vary, but many cases revolve around the same record-based arguments. The claim file is usually the center of the fight.
A denial can support a bad faith theory when it lacks a reasonable factual or legal basis under the governing law. In practice, lawyers often point to selective reliance on one report, failure to address contrary documentation, or explanations that appear to have been assembled after the decision rather than reflecting the reasoning at the time.
What makes this argument persuasive is not the label “unreasonable.” It is the audit trail. If the file shows the insurer ignored meaningful information, overlooked internal inconsistencies, or failed to reconcile conflicting evidence before taking a firm position, it becomes easier to argue the decision was not defensible when it was made.
Claim files are often litigated as investigation cases. Did the insurer gather key facts, consider material evidence submitted by the insured, consult appropriate professionals where specialized issues were involved, and avoid outcome-driven fact gathering?
In California, Egan is often cited for the principle that good faith requires a fair investigation and a reasonable evaluation of the claim before the insurer takes a firm position on benefits.
Unexplained gaps, repeated requests for the same documentation, and long periods with no meaningful decision-making can become part of a bad faith theory, especially where the delay increased costs or caused prejudice.
Delay arguments tend to be strongest when the timeline is specific. A detailed chronology showing when documents were received, when inspections occurred, and when coverage positions were communicated often matters more than broad accusations.
Some cases allege the insurer misstated exclusions, deadlines, or documentation requirements in ways that discouraged payment or impaired the insured’s ability to pursue benefits. These disputes often turn on what was actually communicated and whether those communications aligned with the policy terms and applicable requirements.
Where regulations set claims-handling standards for communication and documentation, litigants often cite them as evidence of what careful claim handling looks like. California’s Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations are one example of a regulatory framework parties may point to, especially on topics like file and record documentation, communications with claimants, and standards for prompt and fair settlements.
The key point is that regulations can be relevant to reasonableness, but they do not automatically create a private lawsuit by themselves in every setting. In California, Moradi-Shalal is a reminder that not every insurance regulation or statute is a private right of action.
In settlement-focused cases, plaintiffs often argue the insurer did not perform a real evaluation of risk. Missing documentation can be a problem here, such as the absence of a written risk analysis, no meaningful valuation workup, or no contemporaneous explanation for rejecting a policy-limits demand.
From a proof standpoint, this is another claim-file issue. If the file does not show any serious evaluation of liability exposure, damages risk, venue risk, or how a jury might value the case, the insurer’s later explanation can look less credible.
Bad faith law depends on state law, and California’s case law provides a concrete example for several recurring issues.
In many disputes, coverage is a threshold pressure point. If the insurer can establish there was no coverage, a plaintiff’s nonpayment theory often becomes harder to sustain. Where coverage is at least arguable, the focus tends to shift to whether the claim was handled fairly while coverage and value were evaluated.
A common pressure point is how the insurer handled uncertainty. Did it investigate first and decide second, or did it decide first and treat later investigation as a search for confirmation?
Reasonableness is the main issue in most bad faith cases. Courts may look closely at what the insurer did, what information it had at the time, and whether the steps taken were defensible.
California provides a useful example of how courts analyze this. Wilson explains that the genuine dispute rule does not eliminate the insurer’s duty to thoroughly and fairly investigate and evaluate the claim. A genuine dispute only exists if the insurer’s position is maintained in good faith and on reasonable grounds.
Put differently, a genuine dispute argument does not excuse a thin investigation, and it only helps the insurer if the position was maintained in good faith and on reasonable grounds.
The takeaway is simple: when an insurer leans on “genuine dispute,” the litigation often focuses on whether the contemporaneous file supports that the dispute was legitimately and reasonably grounded at the time.
Punitive damages standards vary by jurisdiction. In California, punitive damages are governed by Civil Code section 3294 and require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice in an action not arising from contract. As a practical matter, punitive exposure often rises or falls on whether the record supports something more than ordinary unreasonableness.
Plaintiffs generally need to connect the insurer’s conduct to real damages. Many disputes become causation fights about what losses were caused by the covered event versus what losses were caused by delay, denial, or underpayment.
This is where damages methodology becomes a battleground. If a damages case does not separate covered loss from alleged handling harm, it becomes easier to challenge.
Bad faith claims can expand exposure beyond basic breach-of-contract remedies in some jurisdictions. California recognizes tort remedies in the insurance bad faith context, which is why damages issues can become a central litigation front.
Common categories that may appear, depending on the governing law and case posture, include:
Because the rules can be state-specific, damages analysis is usually something counsel should evaluate early with the controlling law in mind.
Expert testimony can matter in bad faith litigation, especially when the dispute turns on standards, methodology, valuation, or damages modeling. In sophisticated cases, expert work can also become a focal point for attacks if the methodology is unclear or overreaches. A claims-handling opinion that reads like advocacy, or a damages model that cannot be explained and checked, can weaken an otherwise strong case theme.
These experts evaluate whether the insurer’s process aligns with reasonable claims practices and, where relevant, applicable claims-handling rules.
From a litigation-prep standpoint, credible opinions usually start with a disciplined methodology:
When this workflow is missing, cross-examination often follows a familiar path. Opposing counsel may argue hindsight bias, cherry-picking, ignoring contrary file entries, or treating internal manuals as binding law.
While policy interpretation is usually a legal question, experts may provide context on how claims are typically handled in similar situations and whether the insurer’s decisions were consistent with industry practices.
A defensible custom-and-practice opinion needs foundations that can be tested. If the expert never clearly states the standard being applied, or shifts between “industry custom,” “what I would do,” and “what the law requires,” the opinion becomes easier to challenge as unreliable or unhelpful.
Depending on the claim, parties may retain construction or engineering professionals, medical specialists, forensic accountants, or economic damages experts.
These experts can be decisive when causation, scope of loss, valuation assumptions, or damages modeling are contested. They also create risk if they cannot tie opinions to the record, explain assumptions, and show their work clearly.
Courts exclude experts for many reasons, but a few recurring challenge themes show up across many case types:
In federal court, challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony are commonly litigated under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
What qualifies as insurance bad faith?
In plain terms, bad faith allegations usually focus on whether an insurer handled a claim unreasonably. In California, courts recognize bad faith as a tort in the insurance context and analyze the insurer’s conduct under those standards.
Can you sue an insurance company for bad faith if coverage is disputed?
Sometimes. A coverage dispute does not automatically end a bad faith case. In California, for example, courts have addressed how the insurer’s investigation and evaluation can matter even when the insurer argues there was a “genuine dispute.”
What damages are recoverable in a bad faith lawsuit?
It depends on the governing law and the case posture. In California, the case law recognizes tort remedies in the insurance bad faith context. Crisci is often discussed in the third-party failure-to-settle setting, and punitive damages in California are governed by Civil Code section 3294.
Do bad faith claims require expert testimony?
Not always. Experts tend to matter most when the dispute turns on claims-handling standards, technical causation, valuation methodology, or damages modeling. In federal court, challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony are commonly litigated under Rule 702.
As a practical way to organize the issues, insurance bad faith disputes are often discussed in two buckets. The insurer’s duties and the damages theories can look different depending on whether the claim is first-party or third-party.
First-party disputes involve a policyholder seeking benefits under their own policy. Examples can include property loss claims, health coverage disputes, and disability or life insurance proceeds.
These cases often turn on how the insurer investigated the loss, evaluated coverage and value, and explained the basis for denial, delay, or a payment that the insured contends was unsupported.
In California first-party cases, the core question is often whether the insurer lacked a proper basis for failing to pay or delaying payment, based on what it knew or reasonably should have known at the time.
A simple way to pressure-test a first-party file is to line it up in time order. Do the key decisions look like the result of a careful investigation, or do they look like the insurer decided first and built a record later?
A separate caveat applies to many employer-sponsored health plans: if a claim involves an ERISA-governed plan, ERISA can preempt certain state-law theories, including some bad faith and extra-contractual claims.
For example, Pilot Life is often cited for the point that ERISA can preempt state common law claims based on the alleged improper processing of claims for benefits under an ERISA-governed plan.
Third-party disputes typically arise under liability policies, where the insurer may owe defense and settlement-related duties under the policy and governing law.
In California, Comunale is often cited for the idea that an insurer must give the insured’s interests at least equal consideration in settlement decisions, and that an unwarranted refusal to accept a reasonable settlement within policy limits can expose the insurer to liability beyond those limits.
Johansen is often cited for the rule that when an insurer rejects a reasonable settlement within policy limits because it believes there is no coverage, it does so at its own risk, and a good-faith but incorrect coverage position does not automatically shield it from liability for the resulting excess judgment.
Crisci is also commonly discussed in this settlement-duty setting. In California settlement-duty cases, courts often evaluate reasonableness through a practical lens, including whether a prudent insurer with no policy limits would have accepted the offer.
Once you know whether the dispute is first-party or third-party, the case often narrows to a practical theme: was the insurer’s process reasonable, and does the contemporaneous claim file support what the insurer says it did and why?
Bad faith pleadings vary, but many cases revolve around the same record-based arguments. The claim file is usually the center of the fight.
A denial can support a bad faith theory when it lacks a reasonable factual or legal basis under the governing law. In practice, lawyers often point to selective reliance on one report, failure to address contrary documentation, or explanations that appear to have been assembled after the decision rather than reflecting the reasoning at the time.
What makes this argument persuasive is not the label “unreasonable.” It is the audit trail. If the file shows the insurer ignored meaningful information, overlooked internal inconsistencies, or failed to reconcile conflicting evidence before taking a firm position, it becomes easier to argue the decision was not defensible when it was made.
Claim files are often litigated as investigation cases. Did the insurer gather key facts, consider material evidence submitted by the insured, consult appropriate professionals where specialized issues were involved, and avoid outcome-driven fact gathering?
In California, Egan is often cited for the principle that good faith requires a fair investigation and a reasonable evaluation of the claim before the insurer takes a firm position on benefits.
Unexplained gaps, repeated requests for the same documentation, and long periods with no meaningful decision-making can become part of a bad faith theory, especially where the delay increased costs or caused prejudice.
Delay arguments tend to be strongest when the timeline is specific. A detailed chronology showing when documents were received, when inspections occurred, and when coverage positions were communicated often matters more than broad accusations.
Some cases allege the insurer misstated exclusions, deadlines, or documentation requirements in ways that discouraged payment or impaired the insured’s ability to pursue benefits. These disputes often turn on what was actually communicated and whether those communications aligned with the policy terms and applicable requirements.
Where regulations set claims-handling standards for communication and documentation, litigants often cite them as evidence of what careful claim handling looks like. California’s Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations are one example of a regulatory framework parties may point to, especially on topics like file and record documentation, communications with claimants, and standards for prompt and fair settlements.
The key point is that regulations can be relevant to reasonableness, but they do not automatically create a private lawsuit by themselves in every setting. In California, Moradi-Shalal is a reminder that not every insurance regulation or statute is a private right of action.
In settlement-focused cases, plaintiffs often argue the insurer did not perform a real evaluation of risk. Missing documentation can be a problem here, such as the absence of a written risk analysis, no meaningful valuation workup, or no contemporaneous explanation for rejecting a policy-limits demand.
From a proof standpoint, this is another claim-file issue. If the file does not show any serious evaluation of liability exposure, damages risk, venue risk, or how a jury might value the case, the insurer’s later explanation can look less credible.
Bad faith law depends on state law, and California’s case law provides a concrete example for several recurring issues.
In many disputes, coverage is a threshold pressure point. If the insurer can establish there was no coverage, a plaintiff’s nonpayment theory often becomes harder to sustain. Where coverage is at least arguable, the focus tends to shift to whether the claim was handled fairly while coverage and value were evaluated.
A common pressure point is how the insurer handled uncertainty. Did it investigate first and decide second, or did it decide first and treat later investigation as a search for confirmation?
Reasonableness is the main issue in most bad faith cases. Courts may look closely at what the insurer did, what information it had at the time, and whether the steps taken were defensible.
California provides a useful example of how courts analyze this. Wilson explains that the genuine dispute rule does not eliminate the insurer’s duty to thoroughly and fairly investigate and evaluate the claim. A genuine dispute only exists if the insurer’s position is maintained in good faith and on reasonable grounds.
Put differently, a genuine dispute argument does not excuse a thin investigation, and it only helps the insurer if the position was maintained in good faith and on reasonable grounds.
The takeaway is simple: when an insurer leans on “genuine dispute,” the litigation often focuses on whether the contemporaneous file supports that the dispute was legitimately and reasonably grounded at the time.
Punitive damages standards vary by jurisdiction. In California, punitive damages are governed by Civil Code section 3294 and require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice in an action not arising from contract. As a practical matter, punitive exposure often rises or falls on whether the record supports something more than ordinary unreasonableness.
Plaintiffs generally need to connect the insurer’s conduct to real damages. Many disputes become causation fights about what losses were caused by the covered event versus what losses were caused by delay, denial, or underpayment.
This is where damages methodology becomes a battleground. If a damages case does not separate covered loss from alleged handling harm, it becomes easier to challenge.
Bad faith claims can expand exposure beyond basic breach-of-contract remedies in some jurisdictions. California recognizes tort remedies in the insurance bad faith context, which is why damages issues can become a central litigation front.
Common categories that may appear, depending on the governing law and case posture, include:
Because the rules can be state-specific, damages analysis is usually something counsel should evaluate early with the controlling law in mind.
Expert testimony can matter in bad faith litigation, especially when the dispute turns on standards, methodology, valuation, or damages modeling. In sophisticated cases, expert work can also become a focal point for attacks if the methodology is unclear or overreaches. A claims-handling opinion that reads like advocacy, or a damages model that cannot be explained and checked, can weaken an otherwise strong case theme.
These experts evaluate whether the insurer’s process aligns with reasonable claims practices and, where relevant, applicable claims-handling rules.
From a litigation-prep standpoint, credible opinions usually start with a disciplined methodology:
When this workflow is missing, cross-examination often follows a familiar path. Opposing counsel may argue hindsight bias, cherry-picking, ignoring contrary file entries, or treating internal manuals as binding law.
While policy interpretation is usually a legal question, experts may provide context on how claims are typically handled in similar situations and whether the insurer’s decisions were consistent with industry practices.
A defensible custom-and-practice opinion needs foundations that can be tested. If the expert never clearly states the standard being applied, or shifts between “industry custom,” “what I would do,” and “what the law requires,” the opinion becomes easier to challenge as unreliable or unhelpful.
Depending on the claim, parties may retain construction or engineering professionals, medical specialists, forensic accountants, or economic damages experts.
These experts can be decisive when causation, scope of loss, valuation assumptions, or damages modeling are contested. They also create risk if they cannot tie opinions to the record, explain assumptions, and show their work clearly.
Courts exclude experts for many reasons, but a few recurring challenge themes show up across many case types:
In federal court, challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony are commonly litigated under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
What qualifies as insurance bad faith?
In plain terms, bad faith allegations usually focus on whether an insurer handled a claim unreasonably. In California, courts recognize bad faith as a tort in the insurance context and analyze the insurer’s conduct under those standards.
Can you sue an insurance company for bad faith if coverage is disputed?
Sometimes. A coverage dispute does not automatically end a bad faith case. In California, for example, courts have addressed how the insurer’s investigation and evaluation can matter even when the insurer argues there was a “genuine dispute.”
What damages are recoverable in a bad faith lawsuit?
It depends on the governing law and the case posture. In California, the case law recognizes tort remedies in the insurance bad faith context. Crisci is often discussed in the third-party failure-to-settle setting, and punitive damages in California are governed by Civil Code section 3294.
Do bad faith claims require expert testimony?
Not always. Experts tend to matter most when the dispute turns on claims-handling standards, technical causation, valuation methodology, or damages modeling. In federal court, challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony are commonly litigated under Rule 702.
Contract Disputes
Insurance Claims
Claims Adjuster
Insurance Coverage
Coverage Interpretation
Insurance Contracts
Causation Analysis
Damages Calculations
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
