Case Summary

4240 In an action for bad faith against an insurer found to have engaged in a five-year course of reprehensible conduct designed to intimidate insureds into abandoning their claim against the insurer for its unjustified failure to defend, an award of punitive damages in a ratio to compensatory damages of 3.2:1 was not excessive; although the underlying action had been brought only against the insured husband, the insured wife had standing to sue the insurer because under Community Property Law she would have been liable for any judgment rendered in the action; the jury was properly permitted to consider defendant's net worth in determining the amount of punitive damages; a comparison of the punitive damages award to civil penalties authorized in such a case was not a matter for the jury to consider, but for the court to consider in reviewing the jury's verdict; since the defendant committed uncounted prohibited acts during a five year period, a comparison of the punitive damages award to the maximum civil penalties per act authorized by the Insurance Code would not have been of practical value; the "genuine dispute doctrine," which permits an insurer to delay paying first-party policy benefits in the face of a legitimate dispute regarding the insured's entitlement to them, does not apply in failure-to-defend cases.

CENTURY v POLISSO (Bad Faith Puni's) 139 CA4 922 [See: CivC 3294; BAJI 14.72.2; BMW v Gore 517 US 559; State Farm v Campbell 538 US 408, T/AT 7/03; Adams v Murakami 54 C3 105]