A latest resolution by the Ninth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals in Altschuler v. Chubb Nationwide Insurance coverage Firm 1 reaffirms some foundational insurance coverage rules in terms of proof of possession and the dealing with of claims for distinctive, high-value property. The ruling additionally supplies perception into how Arizona courts consider claims of unhealthy religion, a typical that has change into extra nuanced and seemingly tough to show lately.
Douglas Altschuler, a passionate artwork collector, introduced swimsuit in opposition to Chubb after the corporate denied his declare for the theft of a priceless silkscreen paintings entitled Andy Mouse, created by Keith Haring in tribute to Andy Warhol. Altschuler claimed the paintings was stolen from his mom’s residence, the place he saved a lot of his assortment. Chubb denied the declare, arguing that Altschuler did not show he owned the precise model of the paintings described in his coverage. Each the district court docket and the Ninth Circuit agreed with Chubb.
The important thing problem was not whether or not the paintings had worth or was misplaced however whether or not Altschuler owned the precise piece that was insured. His insurance coverage coverage lined an editioned silkscreen print labeled “Version of 30,” and extra particularly, he had submitted an appraisal figuring out the piece as quantity 3 out of 30. Nonetheless, in the course of the investigation, it grew to become clear that Altschuler had traded away the one numbered version he as soon as owned years earlier. He later claimed that he may need owned an “artist’s proof” as an alternative, which is a special sort of print, however one which was not particularly listed within the coverage.
The Ninth Circuit held that possession of the insured merchandise is a core aspect of any insurance coverage breach of contract declare. With out proving possession of the property because it was listed within the coverage schedule, Altschuler couldn’t meet his burden of building protection. Consequently, abstract judgment in favor of Chubb was correct.
Whereas the choice to disclaim the breach of contract declare was vital, the case additionally introduced a possibility for the courts to look at the evolving unhealthy religion doctrine underneath Arizona legislation. Altschuler had alleged that Chubb’s denial was not simply incorrect however amounted to unhealthy religion and merited punitive damages. Each the district and appellate courts rejected that declare.
In Arizona, underneath the court docket’s ruling, the usual for proving unhealthy religion is twofold. The insured should present that the insurer lacked an inexpensive foundation for denying the declare, and that the insurer both knew or acted with reckless disregard in regards to the unreasonableness of its place. That is extra than simply displaying that the insurer was fallacious or negligent. There have to be proof of what Arizona courts name “consciously unreasonable conduct.”
The courts have emphasised that insurance coverage corporations are allowed to problem claims which are “pretty debatable.” In Zilisch v. State Farm, the Arizona Supreme Courtroom made clear that insurers have an obligation to deal with their insureds pretty and to research claims completely, but when a declare is pretty debatable, that reality alone could defeat a nasty religion allegation. Later choices like Rawlings v. Apodaca and Noble v. Nationwide Life added that unhealthy religion requires extra than simply an error in judgment. It requires an improper motive or reckless indifference to the insured’s rights.
In Altschuler’s case, the Ninth Circuit discovered that Chubb’s place was not solely pretty debatable, however well-supported by the proof. The insurer had obtained inconsistent data from Altschuler in regards to the paintings’s origin and version quantity, and its investigation revealed that the precise version listed within the coverage had been break up up and offered earlier than the protection even started. That type of discrepancy gave Chubb each cause to query the legitimacy of the declare. With out proof that Chubb acted with data of wrongdoing or with reckless disregard, there might be no unhealthy religion.
The appellate court docket additionally agreed with the district court docket’s dismissal of the punitive damages declare. Underneath Arizona legislation, punitive damages require proof of an “evil thoughts,” that means that the defendant acted with intent to hurt or with a acutely aware disregard of the insured’s rights. As a result of the document confirmed Chubb acted moderately in the course of the declare investigation, that heightened stage of misconduct was not current.
It is a compelling instance of how Arizona federal courts are making use of a extra disciplined framework to unhealthy religion claims. It emphasizes that unhealthy religion shouldn’t be merely about disagreement over protection and even errors in dealing with claims. Quite, it focuses on the insurer’s intent and reasonableness throughout your entire claims course of. The Altschuler resolution additionally reinforces how vital it’s for policyholders to maintain correct data, perceive what is definitely listed of their coverage schedules, and guarantee value determinations and descriptions match what they honestly personal.
For policyholders and claims professionals, the takeaway from this case is possession issues on private property claims and coverage language issues. Moreover, whereas unhealthy religion stays a significant verify in opposition to insurer misconduct, Arizona federal courts proceed to use a excessive bar for proving it.
Thought For The DayÂ
“Get your info first, then you’ll be able to distort them as you please.”
— Mark Twain
1 Altschuler v. Chubb Nationwide Insurance coverage Firm, No. 24-2986, 2025 WL 1392133 (9th Cir. Might 14, 2025).