Alabama Supreme Court Corrects the Perception that Alabama Law Contemplates Two Bad Faith Torts

by Cozen O'Connor

In Brechbill v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 1111117, ___ So. 3d ___, 2013 WL 5394444, 2013 Ala. LEXIS 126 (Ala. Sept. 27, 2013), the Alabama Supreme Court held that there is only one, as opposed to two, causes of action for bad faith. More important, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a bad faith claim, no matter how plead, will not survive when an insurer can show a debatable reason for the denial.

A Windstorm Leads to Dueling Expert Reports and a Lawsuit

In Brechbill, Shawn Brechbill purchased a 30-year-old home, which he had inspected prior to closing. The inspector noted some floor squeaking and no long-term settling. A State Farm representative inspected the house and confirmed that it met underwriting guidelines. Specifically, State Farm’s file reflected there was “no unrepaired damage.”

Approximately four months after purchasing the home, a windstorm occurred. Brechbill alleged the windstorm shook the house and windows severely. A wind speed device on Brechbill’s home measured wind speeds of approximately 59 miles per hour. After the windstorm, Brechbill observed roof shingle damage, wall cracks and buckling, extensive floor squeaking and dislodged door frames. Brechbill submitted an insurance claim to State Farm.

In response, State Farm sent an adjuster who also observed roof shingle damage, cracked drywall and separated door jams. The adjuster concluded that the State Farm policy covered damage to the roof, but not to the interior and suggested that State Farm engage an engineer. State Farm’s engineer concluded that long term settlement caused the home’s interior damage, potentially exacerbated by poor design and construction. The State Farm engineer opined that the damage likely existed when Brechbill bought the home but had gone “unnoticed.” State Farm denied Brechbill’s claim for the home’s interior damage on two grounds: wear and tear from the home’s age and construction/design defects. Brechbill hired his own expert, who issued a report contradicting the findings of State Farm’s engineer. State Farm’s engineer prepared a responsive report, and State Farm reissued a denial of claim for the interior damage.

The Trial Court Distinguishes Causes of Action for Bad Faith and the Elements of Proof Needed to Support Them

Brechbill sued State Farm for breach of contract, bad faith failure to pay claims (a “normal” bad faith claim) and bad faith failure to investigate (an “abnormal” bad faith claim). In support of the latter claim, Brechbill alleged that State Farm’s investigation failed to consider the absence of interior home damage prior to the windstorm — as documented by Brechbill’s pre-purchase home inspection and State Farm’s own underwriting inspection — when deciding to deny his claim for interior home damage.

State Farm moved for partial summary judgment on both of Brechbill’s bad faith claims, contending that the competing expert opinions demonstrated that State Farm had a legitimate reason to deny Brechbill’s claim at the time of denial, thereby negating any bad faith as a matter of law. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion in part, dismissing the normal bad faith claim, but denied State Farm’s motion on Brechbill’s abnormal bad faith claim. The trial court held that “for a plaintiff to survive a motion for summary judgment on a ‘normal’ bad faith claim, his underlying breach of contract claim must be so strong that he would be entitled to a preverdict judgment as a matter of law .... In ‘abnormal’ bad faith cases however, the predicate of a preverdict judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is not required.” In support of this distinction, the trial court cited prior Alabama Supreme Court authority holding “[an insurer’s] knowledge or reckless disregard of the fact that it had no legitimate or reasonable basis for denying a claim may be inferred and imputed to an insurer when it has shown a reckless indifference to facts or proof submitted by the insured.”

The case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in Brechbill’s favor, awarding him $150,000 in compensatory damages for his contract claim and $150,000 damages for his abnormal bad faith claim. State Farm appealed only the latter judgment, contending that the trial court erred in denying State Farm’s summary judgment motion on Brechbill’s abnormal failure to investigate bad faith claim once it concluded that State Farm had a reasonable basis for denying the claim at the time of the denial.

The Alabama Supreme Court Clarifies the Tort of Bad Faith and the Elements Required to Prove Bad Faith

On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court addressed the considerable confusion regarding the existence and scope of bad faith claims under Alabama law. The court stated that four elements defined a normal bad faith claim:

  1. an insurance contract that the insurer breaches;
  2. an intentional refusal to pay the claim;
  3. without any reasonably legitimate or arguable reason (the absence of debatable reason);and
  4. the insurer’s actual knowledge that there is no legitimate or arguable reason;

The court further stated that, when a bad faith failure to investigate was alleged, a plaintiff would need to additionally prove:

  1. the insurer’s intentional failure to determine whether there is a legitimate or arguable reason to refuse to pay the claim.

See Chavers v. Nat’l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 405 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 1981). Brechbill, 2013 WL 5394444, 2013 Ala. LEXIS 126 (quoting Nat’l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bowen, 417 So. 2d 179, 183 (Ala. 1982)).

The Alabama Supreme Court held that only one tort of bad faith exists under Alabama law, quoting the language from Chavers, stating that “an actionable tort arises for an insurer’s intentional refusal to settle a direct claim ….” (Emphasis in original). Regardless of which “type” of bad faith was alleged, the court held that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the insurer acted “without any reasonably legitimate or arguable reason” when denying a claim. The Alabama Supreme Court held that, by dismissing Brechbill’s normal bad faith claim, the trial court determined as a matter of law that State Farm had a legitimate or arguable basis to deny Brechbill’s claim and this finding was dispositive regardless of the type of bad faith claim alleged. The court also stated that, although State Farm’s investigation may not have been perfect, State Farm’s conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith, which it described as “dishonesty, self-interest or ill will.”


Brechbill clarifies Alabama law, holding that Alabama recognizes only one cause of action for bad faith. No matter how the bad faith is alleged, whether as a failure to pay or as a failure to investigate, an insurer can defeat a bad faith cause of action by demonstrating that it had an arguable basis for denying a claim at the time of denial. The Alabama Supreme Court distinguished other cases finding bad faith based on a failure to investigate by noting that the proof supporting a reasonable basis for denial cannot be developed after the denial, but instead must exist at the time the denial is issued. In finding that State Farm’s conduct did not show “dishonesty, self-interest of ill will,” the court also noted State Farm’s willingness to review and re-evaluate its denial based on additional facts as presented by Brechbill. In this regard, Brechbill is instructive to an insurer in how to investigate a claim, document findings and respond to additional information provided by an insured.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cozen O'Connor | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cozen O'Connor

Cozen O'Connor on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.