Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On June 7, 2018, New Jersey’s Senate passed New Jersey Senate Bill 2144, the New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA). In its current form, the proposed law creates an insurance bad faith statute that would provide remedies for “an unreasonable delay or unreasonable denial of a claim for payment of benefits under an insurance policy,” and/or for violations N.J. Statute 17:29B-4. Among other provisions, subsection 9 of 17:29B-4 includes New Jersey’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (UCSPA), which lists 14 different forms of insurer misconduct.


By contrast with current common law bad faith, the IFCA does not clearly state any additional requirement that an unreasonable delay or denial be accompanied by some form of bad faith, intentional conduct or reckless indifference, or whether the word “unreasonable” itself means more than negligence. Defining common law bad faith, New Jersey’s Supreme Court stated in the Badiali case that: “A finding of bad faith against an insurer in denying an insurance claim cannot be established through simple negligence. … Moreover, mere failure to settle a debatable claim does not constitute bad faith. … Rather, to establish a first-party bad faith claim for denial of benefits in New Jersey, a plaintiff must show that no debatable reasons existed for denial of the benefits.” New Jersey’s federal courts have frequently interpreted the fairly debatable bad faith standard as requiring proof the insurer knew its conduct was unreasonable or recklessly disregarded that fact. This includes both pre and post Badiali cases, including recent decisions.

Thus, without further explanation, it is not wholly clear whether the IFCA is subject to a negligence standard, or if IFCA unreasonableness is meant to include the additional common law elements that go beyond mere negligence. If the standard is negligence, then it would be a misnomer to call this a bad faith statute at all.

The statute proposes including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, and legal costs within its remedies, which some may argue are atypical punishments for merely negligent conduct. By comparison, however, the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) provides for treble damages and attorney’s fees to address a wide range of conduct and mental states. Thus, the CFA punishes affirmative statements that constitute misrepresentations, irrespective of an intent to mislead; knowing material omissions, which do require proof of intent; or strict liability for regulatory violations.


On this last point, the proposed IFCA encompasses the UCSPA, among other portions of section 17:29B-4. Within the UCSPA’s 14 subsections, reasonableness is often the express standard, however, some subsections simply describe the conduct constituting whether an insurer has acted improperly, or, in some instances it describes conduct beyond mere negligence. The UCSPA’s language includes, e.g.: “misrepresenting pertinent facts”, “failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly”, “failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards”, “refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information”, “failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed”, “not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear”, “making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which the payments are being made”, “compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insureds”.

Despite using reasonableness standards in many instances, the UCSPA is underpinned by the notion that the misconduct is frequent enough to indicate a general business practice. This frequency requirement would seem to indicate that an element of intentionality or purposefulness is the fundamental reason that it is necessary to address the misconduct listed in all 14 subparts. In eliminating the frequency requirement, is the IFCA overlooking the idea that the UCSPA was designed to punish ongoing and continuous bad behavior because of its purposeful, intentional or reckless repetition, and not merely individual instances of negligent or unintentional behavior?

It is also interesting to compare subsection 17:29B-4(9)(f) and the new delay or denial IFCA cause of action. Under UCSPA subsection (9)(f): “Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: … (f) ‘Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear….” This statutory language includes two concepts to make out misconduct: (1) a lack of good faith effort to settle when (2) it is unreasonable not to make a fair settlement. Under the proposed new law, the failure to pay a benefit due is actionable if it unreasonable, with no mention of any failure to act in good faith as an additional element.


In addition, there is no explanation of what burden of proof applies, i.e., preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. It should be noted that the preponderance of evidence standard applies to the Consumer Fraud Act and Insurance Fraud Prevention Act. Moreover, while statutory UCSPA violations require that the acts at issue be committed or performed “with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice,” that is not the proposed standard under the new law. Neither unreasonable delay or denial claims, nor actions for UCSPA violations, require “the claimant … to prove that the insurer’s actions were of such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice.”


The “Statement” accompanying the bill begins: “This bill, the ‘New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act,’ establishes a private cause of action for first-party claimants regarding certain unfair or unreasonable practices by their insurer.”

The bill defines: “’First-party claimant’” or ‘claimant’ means an individual, corporation, association, partnership or other legal entity asserting an entitlement to benefits owed directly to or on behalf of an insured under an insurance policy.” Under this definition, it certainly appears that a claimant must be an insured who has been denied an entitlement to a benefit. In unreasonable delay or denial cases, there must be a delay or denial “for payment of benefits under an insurance policy….” Thus, if no monetary benefit is due, the statute should not apply.

As to UCSPA cases, claims may be asserted “for any violation of the provisions of” the UCSPA’s sections. Based on the definition of claimant, one would assume that there must be some actual denial of a monetary benefit due to the insured for a claimant to raise a UCSPA based IFCA action. Regulatory oversight should apply where no benefit is denied, but the UCSPA has been violated. The statute could be clearer on this point.

In practice, first party claims are often contrasted with third party claims to mean that first party claims are direct claims by an insured to a carrier to indemnify losses suffered by the insured. Third party claims involve instances where an insured is subject to another’s claim for loss caused by the insured, or where the insured has been sued and is seeking a defense and indemnification for losses suffered by others attributable to the insured. Following these uses, and looking solely to the bill’s text, it is not perfectly clear whether the proposed new law covers third party claims, though it would seem not to cover such claims.

The definition of claimant includes “asserting an entitlement to benefits owed [1] directly to or [2] on behalf of an insured under an insurance policy.” A benefit “owned directly to” an insured clearly addresses first party claims. Some may try to argue that the phrasing, a benefit owed “on behalf of an insured,” could be interpreted to mean owed on behalf of an insured to those making claims against the insured. Moreover, is the duty to pay for the insured’s defense in a third party action a benefit owned directly to the insured?

This language could use some clarification in the statute’s text itself in the first instance if it is to become law, rather than going through years or decades of case law to answer these questions in the courts, as issues of statutory interpretation. One only need look at the effusion of statutory bad faith case law in neighboring Pennsylvania over the last 29 years to see the benefits of writing a clear statute in the first instance. If, as seemingly set forth in the “Statement,” the new law is only to cover traditional first party claims, then make that clear in the text. If it is to cover something more, then make that clear.


The proposed law provides that “upon establishing that a violation of the provisions of this act has occurred,” plaintiffs “shall be entitled to: (1) actual damages caused by the violation of this act; (2) prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees, and all reasonable litigation expenses; and (3) treble damages.”

The new law uses the phrase “upon establishing”, which again points out (1) the absence of what the burden of proof is to establish a cause of action under this statute; (2) whether the statute requires negligence, some form, intent, recklessness or bad faith; (3) whether the unreasonableness must be subjective or objective; and/or (4) whether there could be instances of strict liability.

Moreover, these remedies are mandatory and not discretionary because plaintiffs “shall be entitled” to the listed relief. Again, it arguably would be out of the ordinary to award mandatory treble damages and attorney’s fees upon proof of negligence only.

As to the meaning of “actual damages”, this relief would appear to be redundant with an ordinary breach of contract claim if limited to benefits due and not paid under the policy. However, the meaning of the term is not defined in the proposed new law. Does the term “actual damages” also encompass consequential damages? Does it encompass emotional distress damages? Again, the lack of definition opens the door to years of litigation over such issues.

Some other loose ends: Looking at issues arising in other state’s interpreting bad faith statutes, it may be useful to include an express statute of limitations and what portions of the statute go to the jury or not.

We will be following the legislative process and reporting on the proposed IFCA as it develops.