U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 10 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 7804,7804 |
| Citation | 91 Nev. 617,540 P.2d 1070 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. Keith H. PETERSON, doing business as K. H. Peterson Construction Co., and A. S. Johnson Construction Co., a Nevada joint venture, Respondents and Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Claims for damages arose out of a construction contract entered into between Keith H. Peterson, doing business as K. H. Peterson Construction Co., and the United States Forest Service for construction of a roadway in Lamoille Canyon in Elko County. Peterson was engaged in the project as the active participant of a joint venture with A. S. Johnson Construction Co. The latter company served only to enhance Peterson's bonding capability in order that he could be better considered for the job.
In the fall of 1970, Peterson and Johnson, referred to jointly as respondents, were the successful bidders for a construction contract with the United States Forest Service for the improvement of 5.41 miles of existing road and the construction of an additional 2.63 miles of new road in Lamoille Canyon.
An existing contract between the United States Forest Service and Nevada Power Company regarding a pipe and trestle that ran alongside and adjacent to a portion of the construction project provided for liquidated damages in the event of any interruption of the flow of water through the pipe. Respondents' contract with the United States Forest Service covered that contingency by providing that they were to pay liquidated damages to Nevada Power Company in the event their construction activities interrupted the flow of water. As protection against that eventuality, appellant insurance company required the respondents to purchase liability insurance against damage to the pipe and trestle.
During the course of construction, damage occurred to the pipe and trestle on several occasions and notification thereof was given to appellant's representatives. Claims were submitted under the liability policy but appellant delayed and refused to pay despite awareness of respondents' increasingly precarious financial condition.
Finally, this action was commenced by respondents to recover consequential damages because of the insurance company's bad faith refusal to pay which caused Peterson to lose his business and his credit. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that consequential damages might be awarded to Peterson; further, that if such instruction were valid, there existed no evidence of the requisite bad faith on the part of the insurance company that would justify consequential damages.
An additional assignment of error is that the trial court improperly refused offered instructions dealing with the duty of Peterson to take all reasonable steps to prevent other property damages.
1. We approve and adopt the rule that allows recovery of consequential damages where there has been a showing of bad faith by the insurer. Where an insurer fails to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured by refusing without proper cause to compensate its insured for a loss covered by the policy such conduct may give rise to a cause of action in tort for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The duty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio
...Metal Products Co. v. Protection Mutual Insurance Co., 34 Conn.Sup. 46, 375 A.2d 428 (1977) (same); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Peterson, 91 Nev. 617, 540 P.2d 1070 (1975) (property damage insurance); Chavez v. Chenoweth, 89 N.M. 423, 553 P.2d 703 (N.M.App.1976) (automobile ins......
-
Roberts v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co.
...So.2d 920 (Miss. 1980); Montana: First Security Bank of Bozeman v. Goddard, 593 P.2d 1040 (1979); Nevada: United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Peterson, 540 P.2d 1070 (Nev.1975); New Mexico: Chavez v. Chenoweth, 89 N.M. 423, 553 P.2d 703 (1976); State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Clift......
-
Chadima v. National Fidelity Life Ins. Co.
...111 Idaho 304, 723 P.2d 848 (1986); St. Paul & Marine v. Cumiskey, 204 Mont. 350, 665 P.2d 223 (1983); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Peterson, 91 Nev. 617, 540 P.2d 1070 (1975); State Farm Gen Ins. Co. v. Clifton, 86 N.M. 757, 527 P.2d 798 (1974); Corwin Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. W......
-
Braesch v. Union Ins. Co.
...151 Ariz. 149, 726 P.2d 565 (1986); Gruenberg, supra; Dolan v. Aid Ins. Co., 431 N.W.2d 790 (Iowa 1988); United States Fidelity v. Peterson, 91 Nev. 617, 540 P.2d 1070 (1975); Hoskins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 272, 452 N.E.2d 1315 (1983); MFA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flint, 574 S.W.2d 71......
-
CHAPTER 6
...Co. v. Prot. Mut. Ins. Co., 34 Conn. Supp. 46, 51-52, 375 A.2d 428, 430 (Super. Ct. 1977); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Peterson, 91 Nev. 617, 619-20, 540 P.2d 1970, 1071-72 (1975); Christian v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 577 P.2d 899, 904-05 (Okla. 1977); Diamon v. Penn Mut. Fire Ins. C......