Tallman v. Hanssen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an employee’s bad faith claim against the employer’s insurance carrier was not barred by the Act’s exclusivity provision
• recognizing that bad faith by an insurer is an intentional tort
• exclusivity provisions of workers’ compensation act did not bar tort action that alleged intentional infliction of mental anguish by refusing to pay medical bills, inasmuch as bad faith claim was outside scope of exclusivity
• \This court ... recognized that the exclusive remedy provision of our workers' compensation act is applicable only to claims against the employer and does not extend to the employer's compensation insurer.\
• “This court . . . recognized that the exclusive remedy provision of our workers’ compensation act is applicable only to claims against the employer and does not extend to the employer’s compensation insurer.”
• “This court . . . recognized that the exclusive remedy provision of our workers’ compensation act is applicable only to claims against the employer and does not extend to the employer’s compensation insurer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).