- 10 -
owned by the insured but is not insured for uninsured
motorist coverage.
Based on the above information, Mr. Marsh’s claim for
uninsured motorist coverage under his personal
automobile policy is not applicable * * *
The Hawaii Supreme Court had held in 1977 that the exclusion
relied on by the insurer was invalid in the case of Kau v. State
Farm Mut. Auto Ins., 564 P.2d 433 (Haw. 1977).
On March 29, 1989, petitioner commenced a lawsuit against
the insurance company for its failure to pay the above-mentioned
claim. The Civil Information Sheet attached to the Complaint,
signed by the attorney of record, lists the nature of the suit as
“contract” (not motor vehicle tort or other nonvehicle tort).
The Complaint also alleges that:
COUNT I
* * * * * * *
8. Defendant TRAVELERS has breached the Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing under the
policy by refusing or denying or failing to process or
failing to pay Plaintiff’s claim without a reasonable
basis for such conduct and with knowledge and reckless
disregard or the lack of a reasonable basis for such
conduct in that Plaintiff has submitted claims under
the provisions of the policy, and Defendant TRAVELERS
refused to process or pay with knowledge that the
exclusion in Defendant’s policy of insurance is
prohibited under the laws of Hawaii and that Defendant
TRAVELERS has no colorable defense to payment of
uninsured motorist benefits.
COUNT II
* * * * * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011