Daniel Houle v. Liberty Insurance Corporation, Alias, A/K/A Liberty Mutual Group, A/K/A Liberty Mutual, A/K/A Liberty Mutual Insurance

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, Daniel Houle and Karen Houle, appealed from a decision and order of the Superior Court granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings by the defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the motion justice erred in granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant because, they contended, the pleadings established the facts necessary to support claims for breach of contract and bad faith. The Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant because the motion justice overlooked the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is inherent in every insurance contract, and it could not be said that the allegations as pled, and under any set of facts that may be proven at trial, would not support a claim for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the order of the Superior Court.