Get marketing news you’ll actually want to read

When a policyholder believes an insurer has unreasonably delayed, underpaid, or denied a claim, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing can serve as a powerful legal claim alongside traditional contract theories. In jurisdictions that recognize this implied covenant, plaintiffs must show the insurer acted with more than mere negligence or error; they must demonstrate conduct that violates the reasonable expectations of good faith. The initial pleadings should articulate both the contractual terms at issue and the behavioral standards that the insurer allegedly failed to meet. Courts often look for egregious patterns, not isolated mistakes, so the complaint should emphasize repeated or systematic conduct.

Early case selection and factual development matter. Before filing, gather communications, internal memos, claims handling notes, and correspondence with adjusters. This material helps establish whether the insurer pursued a legitimate interpretation of policy language or engaged in deceptive practices or unreasonable delay. A well crafted complaint should identify specific representations that contradicted policy provisions, timelines that were knowingly ignored, and procedural violations that curtailed the insured’s rights. Importantly, the plaintiff must connect these actions to the breach of the covenant, showing that the insurer’s conduct was not merely erroneous but morally and legally improper as measured by industry standards.

In drafting the complaint, the pleading must balance legal theory with easily verifiable facts. A robust count for bad faith often rests on a well documented timeline showing how the insurer’s handling deviated from standard practice. Include precise dates, the names of claims personnel involved, and the exact policy terms at issue. Courts will scrutinize whether the insurer had legitimate reasons to dispute or delay payment or whether it used technicalities primarily to avoid payout. The narrative should avoid hyperbole, instead anchoring conclusions to the documentary trail that demonstrates a deliberate departure from fair dealing principles.

Another essential element is the insured’s reasonable expectations. Many policies include language that requires prompt, thorough, and fair consideration of reasonable claims. If the insurer’s actions frustrate those expectations, especially when leverage or pressure tactics are used to coerce settlements, the breach theory gains traction. Your pleadings should articulate how the insurer’s conduct eroded the insured’s reliance on prompt and fair processing, creating an environment where the insured could not secure the benefits promised by the contract. This connection helps persuade a judge or jury that the covenant was breached.

The law often recognizes a distinction between a good-faith dispute over coverage and a bad-faith denial. To avoid conflating the two, frame the allegations around unreasonable conduct rather than mere disagreement about policy interpretation. Demonstrate that the insurer manipulated procedural steps, such as fabricating grounds for denial, misrepresenting policy scope, or relying on selective information. Attach examples where the insurer delayed or mishandled the claim while concurrently pursuing aggressive collection or subrogation strategies. The aim is to show that the insurer’s conduct exceeded professional judgment and crossed into a breach of the covenant.

Expert testimony frequently strengthens bad-faith claims. Retain experts in insurance coverage analysis, claims handling practices, and industry standards to interpret policy terms and customary procedures. An expert can translate complex contractual language into a clear narrative for the court, explaining why the insurer’s actions failed to meet generally accepted standards. The expert’s report should highlight deviations from standard practices, quantify delays in payment, and explain the impact on the insured’s financial position. Coupled with documentary evidence, this testimony can frame the breach as a systemic failure rather than an isolated mistake.

Pleadings should also address notice and timing requirements, ensuring no procedural default undermines the bad-faith claim. Some jurisdictions require a threshold showing before pursuing a covenant claim, while others permit immediate elaboration within the complaint. In either case, clearly state how the insurer’s conduct violated the covenant and caused injury. Include a precise damages theory, whether compensatory, consequential, or for emotional distress where permissible. The factual backbone should be sturdy, enabling the court to distinguish a legitimate coverage dispute from a breach of the implied covenant that supports a recovery.

Discovery plays a pivotal role in establishing bad faith. Request internal communications, claim file notes, and supervisor approvals to reveal patterns of misleading statements or inconsistent positions. Seek data on claim processing timelines, calibration of reserves, and the use of settlement levers that suggest strategic withholding of funds. By correlating timelines with communications and policy language, you can demonstrate that the insurer’s conduct was not a good-faith effort to interpret coverage but a calculated attempt to reduce payout or avoid responsibility.

During depositions and trial preparation, distill technical terms into understandable explanations for judges and juries. Show how the insurer’s actions deviated from ordinary claims handling, and explain the practical consequences for the insured. The story should move from factual scaffolding to an evaluative assessment of bad faith—why the insurer’s choices were unreasonable, unjustified, or exploitative. Present concrete examples, such as unexplained denials, inconsistent reason-giving, or delays that were incongruent with the complexity of the claim. A clear, persuasive narrative helps nonexperts grasp the moral and legal implications of the covenant breach.

Finally, address defenses head-on. Anticipate arguments about policy exclusions, ambiguity, or the insurer’s legitimate investigative efforts. Acknowledge contested issues and then demonstrate why, even if some elements are debatable, the overall conduct still breaches the covenant. When possible, propose remedial relief that reflects the values of good-faith bargaining, such as expedited reconsideration, full payout of undisputed portions, or access to alternative dispute resolution. A thoughtful, proactive approach to defenses strengthens the credibility of the bad-faith theory and improves the persuasion of the court.

Beyond damages, many jurisdictions authorize fees, costs, and sometimes punitive measures for bad-faith conduct. A well prepared case can leverage these remedies to deter future missteps by insurers and to restore a more equitable balance between policyholders and carriers. Present a clear entitlement to attorney’s fees if permitted by statute or contract, supported by the degree of fault and the extent of harm caused. The conclusion should also emphasize that fair dealing benefits all participants in the risk-sharing ecosystem, reinforcing the policy rationale behind recognizing the covenant in the first place.

As a closing guide, craft a careful trial or motion strategy that preserves flexibility for settlement if warranted. Outline a plan for preserving evidentiary objections, presenting a coherent damages theory, and maintaining a strong narrative thread through expert and lay testimony. Emphasize the standard for bad faith, the factual record supporting it, and the concrete relief sought. The overarching objective is to secure a verdict or settlement that fairly allocates risk, corrects unjust outcomes, and affirms the insured’s right to prompt, honest, and principled claims handling.