Hauff v. Petterson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it was not enough for plaintiff to rely on testimony of his expert for his description of industry standards that defendant allegedly failed to meet
• nothing that the UIPA does not require insurers to settle cases they reasonably believe to be overvalued
• granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s UIPA claim based on failure to adopt and implement reasonable standards for prompt claims investigation and processing where plaintiff failed to “identify [defendant’s] standards and show how they were inadequate”
• granting summary judgment where the plaintiff “cite[d] no significantly probative summary-judgment evidence demonstrating that [defendant] Safeco’s offer to pay after- tax wages was a false, misleading, or deceptive representation ‘knowingly made’ ‘in connection with’ the sale of services”
• federal court free to reconsider earlier summary judgment decisions entered by state court because they were \interlocutory\ rather than final judgments
• An insurer acts in bad faith when “its reasons for denying or delaying payment of the claim are frivolous or unfounded.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).