Publications

A Wisconsin appellate court ruled that a trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to an insurer on a first-party bad faith claim on the basis that coverage was “fairly debatable.”  Tripalin v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1370129 (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2016). 

Tripalin filed a claim with American Family for roof damage allegedly caused by hail.  American Family denied coverage based on an adjuster’s report concluding that the damage was caused by defective shingles rather than hail.  Tripalin submitted a report from a local contractor opining that the damage was caused by hail and requested that American Family reconsider its coverage denial.  American Family denied the request.  Thereafter, Tripalin sued for bad faith.  A trial court granted American Family’s summary judgment motion, finding that bad faith was not established because the cause of damage was “fairly debatable.”  The appellate court affirmed.

The appellate court set forth the stringent standard for withstanding summary judgment on a bad faith claim:

It is not enough to point to evidence supporting or undermining an expert’s opinion in a bad faith case.  Rather, to establish a bad faith denial of coverage, Tripalin would need to show that the opposing expert was so obviously wrong in his opinion that American Family could not have reasonably relied on his opinion in its decision to deny coverage.

The court concluded that no such showing had been made because at most, the two conflicting opinions as to the cause of roof damage supported the argument that coverage was “fairly debatable.”