Truck Insurance Exchange v. VanPort Homes, Inc.
147 Wash. 2d 751 | Washington Supreme Court | 2002
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
VanPort Homes, a construction consultant, had an insurance claim denied by Truck Insurance Exchange. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that when an insurer wrongfully refuses to defend a policyholder in bad faith, it loses the right to deny coverage later. The court also said that if a court approves a settlement as reasonable, the insurer must accept it as reasonable unless it can prove fraud or collusion occurred. This protects subcontractors and construction companies from insurers who abandon them during disputes.
Key Takeaways
- •If your insurer refuses to defend you in a claim, document everything—bad faith refusal can lock them into paying your settlement costs regardless of policy limits or exclusions.
- •Get court approval for any settlement you negotiate. Once a court approves it as reasonable, your insurer cannot later challenge the settlement amount unless they prove fraud.
- •Keep detailed records of your insurer's communications and decisions. Refusing to defend without legitimate cause is bad faith and gives you leverage to recover full damages.
An insurer that, in bad faith, refuses or fails to defend is estopped from denying coverage.
Frequently Asked Question
What happens if my insurance company refuses to defend me in a construction dispute?
If your insurer refuses to defend you in bad faith, they lose the right to deny coverage later and must pay your reasonable settlements. Get court approval for any settlement you reach—once approved, the insurer cannot challenge it unless they prove fraud or collusion occurred.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.