Villarreal v. United Fire & Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14–0298.,14–0298.
• Citation: 873 N.W.2d 714
• Parties: Ben VILLARREAL Jr., Cleo Martinez, and LaCasa Martinez Texmex, Inc., Appellants, v. UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY d/b/a United Fire Group, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

873 N.W.2d 714

Ben VILLARREAL Jr., Cleo Martinez, and LaCasa Martinez Texmex, Inc., Appellants,
v.
UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY d/b/a United Fire Group, Appellee.

No. 14–0298.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 8, 2016.

873 N.W.2d 715

Eric Updegraff and Bruce H. Stoltze of Stoltze & Updegraff, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.

David L. Phipps, S. Luke Craven, and Stephen E. Doohen of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

MANSFIELD, Justice.

A restaurant was severely damaged by fire. The owners made an insurance claim, but much of the claim was denied. They ultimately sued the insurer for policy benefits. They obtained a jury verdict and judgment against the insurer, which the insurer paid. Thereafter, they brought a separate action against the insurer for bad faith, alleging it had lacked a reasonable basis for its prior refusal to pay these benefits. The district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment on the basis of claim preclusion. The court of appeals reversed.

On further review, we must now decide whether a final judgment in a breach-of-contract suit between an insured and an insurer for policy benefits bars a later tort action for bad faith alleging that the insurer lacked an objectively reasonable basis for denying the claim. Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that it does. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On March 8, 2007, a fire severely damaged the restaurant La Casa Martinez in Mason City. Plaintiff La Casa Martinez TexMex, Inc., an Iowa corporation, owned the restaurant, and plaintiffs Ben Villarreal, Jr. and Cleo Martinez were officers and shareholders of the corporation. Martinez also owned the building that housed the restaurant. The corporation had purchased commercial property insurance from United Fire & Casualty Company ("United Fire") with coverage limits of $386,400 for building replacement and $374,400 for personal property replacement. The policy also provided business interruption coverage. It listed the insured as La Casa Martinez TexMex, Inc.

The record does not indicate exactly when United Fire was notified of the fire, but it was soon after March 8. At that point, United Fire sent a certified copy of the policy to the insured. Communications between the insured and United Fire continued thereafter. The insured retained local attorney Jim McGuire. On June 12, Christine Friedrich, United Fire's claims representative, met with Villarreal and McGuire at McGuire's office. Three days later, Villarreal provided United Fire with a lengthy inventory of personal property lost in the fire. The total claimed value of the inventory was approximately $490,000.

There was some question initially whether the building should be repaired or replaced. Martinez had purchased the building and land a year and a half earlier for $150,000, and it was currently assessed for property tax purposes at $153,000. However, there was no dispute that Martinez had made significant improvements to the property after buying it, as the property had previously been vacant for two and a half years. Thus, before opening the restaurant,

873 N.W.2d 716

the plaintiffs had replaced the entire roof, the air conditioning, and the water heater; had made significant repairs to the ceiling, the electrical systems, the bathrooms, and the walls; and had repainted the interior and the exterior.

As compensation for business interruption losses, United Fire paid $23,900 at the outset while asking the insured for financial information to support this portion of the claim. Additional business interruption payments were subsequently made totaling approximately $5200.

On June 25, Villarreal faxed a letter to United Fire with a copy to McGuire demanding an immediate additional payment. On June 27, Villarreal and Martinez sent another letter to Friedrich, demanding immediate payment of $100,000. The letter threatened prompt legal action if the payment was not received and stated in part:

Throughout this process, you have been aware of our continuing downward skid as I have verbally kept you informed of our continuing deteriorating situation and pleas for relief. I will reiterate, we have become impoverished due to your flagrant disregard for our, the customer, welfare, intentional delays, erroneous disbursal of information, lack of returned phone calls to me and my wife and intentional/and/or neglectful handling/servicing of this claim.

Ms. Fried[ ]rich, your actions, and/or lack thereof, have displayed unprofessionalism as well as ethical and ethnic discrimination.

McGuire was copied on the letter.

On August 16, McGuire sent a letter to United Fire stating that his clients must be paid or "I have no alternative but to file suit for damages which you are responsible for in connection with the fire as well as damages for bad faith on the part of your company." Friedrich's supervisor responded on August 27 that the insured had a responsibility to provide proof of losses and the information received by United Fire to date was "inaccurate or incomplete."

On September 12, McGuire sent another letter to Friedrich, maintaining that United Fire "had intentionally delayed the negotiations in settlement of this claim." The letter added, "I also feel that there has been bad faith on the part of your company for some reason or other by intentionally delaying the settlement of this loss."

On October 11, as authorized by the policy, United Fire took statements under oath from Martinez and Villarreal in the presence of McGuire. Martinez and Villarreal testified that improvements totaling $83,500 had been made to the building after the purchase. However, no documentation had been provided at that point to the insurer for the majority of these improvements.

By then, United Fire had paid $24,000 toward the insured's personal property losses. In November, United Fire made a building-related payment of $108,310 that covered only the mortgage balance and therefore went entirely to the mortgagee. This of course meant the insured itself still had received nothing for the loss of the building.

On December 5, McGuire wrote Friedrich a letter seeking $35,173 for lost net profits to the business, $102,000 for payments the officers had not received from the business, an additional $193,054 for the value of the building, and $88,910 for additional, previously unreported contents of the building. The letter added, "In view of the fact that there has been such a long delay in settling, I would ask that we receive the requested drafts within seven days from the date of this letter."

873 N.W.2d 717

Friedrich responded, stating among other things that she would like to hire an appraiser to look at the property. She also complained in a separate email about needing more information from the insured concerning the business interruption claim. On December 27, McGuire sent an email to Friedrich stating,

That is bull shit, Christine. We have given them more than they need and they are intentionally delaying this and have for months!!! They have a duty to treat their insured fairly, not to find ways to deny them of the money that is long over due.

On January 9, 2008, Friedrich replied by letter that United Fire did not owe any additional amounts for business interruption, although it offered to settle this aspect of the claim for $15,000. Regarding the building, Friedrich asserted that the best indicator of its value was the 2006 assessed value of $112,000, "which is also supported by the total purchase price of $150,000 in late 2005 for the structure and the land." Friedrich further acknowledged that her "calculations show that the amount spent on [upgrades to the building] is roughly $45,000." However, she offered to pay only $20,000 for the building in addition to the prior mortgage payoff.

As for the personal property, Friedrich explained that United Fire had already paid $84,638.79 for these losses. She offered to pay another $20,000 in return for a release "to close this out."

In response, McGuire provided Friedrich with an appraisal showing the market value of the building to be $388,200—or approximately $280,000 more than United Fire had paid for this part of the loss. On January 28, 2008, Friedrich indicated that she would refuse to do anything further. She informed McGuire that "United Fire Group is maintaining its [actual cash value] payment at the $108,310.00 already paid to the insured and an additional $20,000.00 for the improvements made."

On March 7, 2008, La Casa Martinez TexMex, Villarreal, and Martinez filed a breach-of-contract action against United Fire to recover under the insurance policy. During the course of the litigation, plaintiffs abandoned any claim for business interruption damages but continued to assert claims that United Fire had underpaid for the building and personal property.

Nearly three years later, trial commenced on March 1, 2011.¹ During her trial testimony, Friedrich admitted she had never determined an actual cash value for the building. On March 4, 2011, a jury returned verdicts for the...