Plaintiff Charles A. Shadid, L.L.C. had a commercial insurance policy with Defendant Aspen Specialty Insurance Company insuring multiple commercial properties. Shadid alleges that in May of 2013, a tornado damaged several of its properties. Shadid sought coverage for the damage from Aspen. Aspen assigned Shadid’s claim to Associated Claims Management, Inc. for field adjustment. ACM inspected each of the properties and requested information about prior repairs and other insurance claims filed on the properties in recent years, among other things. Shadid advised that it had filed other insurance claims regarding some of the properties in the years prior to the inception of the Aspen policy, including a previous claim related to hail damage. Following a series of unsuccessful exchanges seeking additional information about the prior claims, Aspen denied Shadid’s claim. Aspen advised that it was denying the claim for lack of sufficient evidence of a covered loss on the reported date of loss and for Shadid’s lack of cooperation in providing information to substantiate the claim.
Shadid brought suit against Aspen asserting claims for breach of contract and bad faith. Aspen moved for summary judgment on Shadid’s claims, arguing that Shadid failed to cooperate in the investigation of its claim, thereby preventing Aspen from completing a coverage decision or an adjustment of the claim. Alternatively, Aspen argued that the undisputed facts show that Aspen acted reasonably in investigating and denying Shadid’s claim.
The Court denied Aspen’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Shadid had presented minimally sufficient facts from which reasonable jurors could find that Aspen “did not conduct a timely investigation and assessment of the damage to Plaintiff’s properties that was appropriate under the circumstances” or “unreasonably denied the claim based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to cooperate in the investigation of the loss and failure to establish that a loss occurred during the policy period.” As the Court explained in declining to enter summary judgment on Aspen’s failure to cooperate defense, Aspen “does not explain why Plaintiff was obligated to provide information concerning the condition of the insured properties before the policy period, which was presumably included in Defendant’s underwriting of the policy or its initial assessment of the insured risk.” Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Shadid, the Court concluded that Shadid had demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact regarding its bad faith claim, thereby precluding entry of summary judgment for Aspen.
Charles A. Shadid, L.L.C. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, No. CIV-15-595-D (W.D. Okla. Feb. 14, 2018)
