- 12 -
intent and purpose to deceive Plaintiff and to induce
Plaintiff to purchase and accept the insurance policy.
Defendant and each * * * knew that Plaintiff believed
such provisions to be true and the Plaintiff would and
did justifiably rely on such promises and buying the
insurance policy and paying the premiums thereon.
Nevertheless, Defendant and its agents, employees,
authorized representatives or assigns and each of them
concealed such true intent from Plaintiff.
* * * * * * *
27. In acting fraudulently and deceitfully as set
forth herein, Defendants and each of them intended to
and did vex, annoy, and injure Plaintiff.
Petitioner’s attorney made the insurer’s attorney aware of the
Kau v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., supra, and served an extensive
discovery request seeking the identities of all persons in Hawaii
to whom Travelers had denied claims based on the exclusion and
raised the prospect of expanding petitioner’s lawsuit into a
class action suit. Compliance with the discovery request would
have required the insurer to expend thousands of hours of manual
labor. The insurance company eventually agreed to settle the
lawsuit for the maximum amount payable under the policy,
$105,000. The Release and Indemnity Agreement stated in
pertinent part:
RELEASE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
[B]y these presents does release, acquit and forever
discharge, the said RELEASEE * * * from and on account
of any and all claims, actions, causes of action,
liability or liabilities, demands or damages of
whatever name or nature, including any and all claims
for general, special, punitive or treble damages, for
insurance benefits of whatever name or nature, for past
and future earnings loss, for past and future medical
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011