In This Issue:

- Wisconsin Court of Appeals: Insurer Does Not Commit Bad Faith by Refusing to Pay the Undisputed Portion of an Insured’s Claim Where the Policy Does Not Require Payment

- Southern District of Texas: Insurer Does Not Commit Bad Faith by Forcing Insureds to Trial to Determine the Amount of Insureds’ Recoverable UM/UIM Claim

- New Jersey Appellate Court Holds That Privilege is Not Waived in Bad Faith Suits, But that Insurer is Entitled to Ask Questions About Bad Faith Plaintiff’s Knowledge of Settlement Discussions

- Supreme Court of Wyoming: Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith where Policy Failed to Mention Zoning Restrictions.

- Excerpt from "Wisconsin Court of Appeals: Insurer Does Not Commit Bad Faith by Refusing to Pay the Undisputed Portion of an Insured’s Claim Where the Policy Does Not Require Payment":

Plaintiff Eagle Fuel Cells-ETC, Inc. (“Eagle”) suffered a loss of business income as a result of a March 27, 2009 fire that damaged both its equipment and building at Eagle’s manufacturing facility. The fire destroyed an autoclave piece of equipment necessary to manufacture its products. Facing at least a six-month timetable for a new autoclave, Eagle obtained a used autoclave with a production capacity 75 percent of Eagle’s previous machine. As a result of the diminished capacity of the replacement, Eagle suffered a loss of business income.